Cargando…

Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection

Background: The gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis relies on quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain reaction (RT-qPCR) from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens, but NPSs present several limitations. The simplicity, low invasive and possibility of self-collection of saliva imposed thes...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Melo Costa, Monique, Benoit, Nicolas, Dormoi, Jerome, Amalvict, Remy, Gomez, Nicolas, Tissot-Dupont, Hervé, Million, Matthieu, Pradines, Bruno, Granjeaud, Samuel, Almeras, Lionel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8098750/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33986939
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20002297.2021.1920226
_version_ 1783688470278963200
author Melo Costa, Monique
Benoit, Nicolas
Dormoi, Jerome
Amalvict, Remy
Gomez, Nicolas
Tissot-Dupont, Hervé
Million, Matthieu
Pradines, Bruno
Granjeaud, Samuel
Almeras, Lionel
author_facet Melo Costa, Monique
Benoit, Nicolas
Dormoi, Jerome
Amalvict, Remy
Gomez, Nicolas
Tissot-Dupont, Hervé
Million, Matthieu
Pradines, Bruno
Granjeaud, Samuel
Almeras, Lionel
author_sort Melo Costa, Monique
collection PubMed
description Background: The gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis relies on quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain reaction (RT-qPCR) from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens, but NPSs present several limitations. The simplicity, low invasive and possibility of self-collection of saliva imposed these specimens as a relevant alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection. However, the discrepancy of saliva test results compared to NPSs made of its use controversial. Here, we assessed Salivettes®, as a standardized saliva collection device, and compared SARS-CoV-2 positivity on paired NPS and saliva specimens. Methods: A total of 303 individuals randomly selected among those investigated for SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled, including 30 (9.9%) patients previously positively tested using NPS (follow-up group), 90 (29.7%) mildly symptomatic and 183 (60.4%) asymptomatic. Results: The RT-qPCR revealed a positive rate of 11.6% (n = 35) and 17.2% (n = 52) for NPSs and saliva samples, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of saliva samples were 82.9% and 91.4%, respectively, using NPS as reference. The highest proportion of discordant results concerned the follow-up group (33.3%). Although the agreement exceeded 90.0% in the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups, 17 individuals were detected positive only in saliva samples, with consistent medical arguments. Conclusion Saliva collected with Salivette® was more sensitive for detecting symptomatic and pre-symptomatic infections.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8098750
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80987502021-05-10 Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection Melo Costa, Monique Benoit, Nicolas Dormoi, Jerome Amalvict, Remy Gomez, Nicolas Tissot-Dupont, Hervé Million, Matthieu Pradines, Bruno Granjeaud, Samuel Almeras, Lionel J Oral Microbiol Review Article Background: The gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis relies on quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain reaction (RT-qPCR) from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens, but NPSs present several limitations. The simplicity, low invasive and possibility of self-collection of saliva imposed these specimens as a relevant alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection. However, the discrepancy of saliva test results compared to NPSs made of its use controversial. Here, we assessed Salivettes®, as a standardized saliva collection device, and compared SARS-CoV-2 positivity on paired NPS and saliva specimens. Methods: A total of 303 individuals randomly selected among those investigated for SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled, including 30 (9.9%) patients previously positively tested using NPS (follow-up group), 90 (29.7%) mildly symptomatic and 183 (60.4%) asymptomatic. Results: The RT-qPCR revealed a positive rate of 11.6% (n = 35) and 17.2% (n = 52) for NPSs and saliva samples, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of saliva samples were 82.9% and 91.4%, respectively, using NPS as reference. The highest proportion of discordant results concerned the follow-up group (33.3%). Although the agreement exceeded 90.0% in the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups, 17 individuals were detected positive only in saliva samples, with consistent medical arguments. Conclusion Saliva collected with Salivette® was more sensitive for detecting symptomatic and pre-symptomatic infections. Taylor & Francis 2021-04-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8098750/ /pubmed/33986939 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20002297.2021.1920226 Text en © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Melo Costa, Monique
Benoit, Nicolas
Dormoi, Jerome
Amalvict, Remy
Gomez, Nicolas
Tissot-Dupont, Hervé
Million, Matthieu
Pradines, Bruno
Granjeaud, Samuel
Almeras, Lionel
Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection
title Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection
title_full Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection
title_fullStr Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection
title_full_unstemmed Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection
title_short Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection
title_sort salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for sars-cov-2 detection
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8098750/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33986939
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20002297.2021.1920226
work_keys_str_mv AT melocostamonique salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection
AT benoitnicolas salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection
AT dormoijerome salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection
AT amalvictremy salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection
AT gomeznicolas salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection
AT tissotdupontherve salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection
AT millionmatthieu salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection
AT pradinesbruno salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection
AT granjeaudsamuel salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection
AT almeraslionel salivettearelevantsalivasamplingdeviceforsarscov2detection