Cargando…

Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing

We evaluated saliva (SAL) specimens for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) testing by comparison of 459 prospectively paired nasopharyngeal (NP) or midturbinate (MT) swabs from 449 individuals with the aim of using saliva for asymptomatic screening. Samples were collected in a drive-throu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Barat, Bidisha, Das, Sanchita, De Giorgi, Valeria, Henderson, David K., Kopka, Stacy, Lau, Anna F., Miller, Tracey, Moriarty, Theresa, Palmore, Tara N., Sawney, Shari, Spalding, Chris, Tanjutco, Patricia, Wortmann, Glenn, Zelazny, Adrian M., Frank, Karen M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Society for Microbiology 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8106731/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33262219
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02486-20
_version_ 1783689821604020224
author Barat, Bidisha
Das, Sanchita
De Giorgi, Valeria
Henderson, David K.
Kopka, Stacy
Lau, Anna F.
Miller, Tracey
Moriarty, Theresa
Palmore, Tara N.
Sawney, Shari
Spalding, Chris
Tanjutco, Patricia
Wortmann, Glenn
Zelazny, Adrian M.
Frank, Karen M.
author_facet Barat, Bidisha
Das, Sanchita
De Giorgi, Valeria
Henderson, David K.
Kopka, Stacy
Lau, Anna F.
Miller, Tracey
Moriarty, Theresa
Palmore, Tara N.
Sawney, Shari
Spalding, Chris
Tanjutco, Patricia
Wortmann, Glenn
Zelazny, Adrian M.
Frank, Karen M.
author_sort Barat, Bidisha
collection PubMed
description We evaluated saliva (SAL) specimens for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) testing by comparison of 459 prospectively paired nasopharyngeal (NP) or midturbinate (MT) swabs from 449 individuals with the aim of using saliva for asymptomatic screening. Samples were collected in a drive-through car line for symptomatic individuals (n = 380) and in the emergency department (ED) (n = 69). The percentages of positive and negative agreement of saliva compared to nasopharyngeal swab were 81.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.8% to 90.5%) and 99.8% (95% CI, 98.7% to 100%), respectively. The percent positive agreement increased to 90.0% (95% CI, 74.4% to 96.5%) when considering only samples with moderate to high viral load (cycle threshold [C(T)] for the NP, ≤34). Pools of five saliva specimens were also evaluated on three platforms, bioMérieux NucliSENS easyMAG with ABI 7500Fast (CDC assay), Hologic Panther Fusion, and Roche Cobas 6800. The average loss of signal upon pooling was 2 to 3 C(T) values across the platforms. The sensitivities of detecting a positive specimen in a pool compared with testing individually were 94%, 90%, and 94% for the CDC 2019-nCoV real-time RT-PCR, Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay, and Cobas SARS-CoV-2 test, respectively, with decreased sample detection trending with lower viral load. We conclude that although pooled saliva testing, as collected in this study, is not quite as sensitive as NP/MT testing, saliva testing is adequate to detect individuals with higher viral loads in an asymptomatic screening program, does not require swabs or viral transport medium for collection, and may help to improve voluntary screening compliance for those individuals averse to various forms of nasal collections.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8106731
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher American Society for Microbiology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81067312021-05-10 Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing Barat, Bidisha Das, Sanchita De Giorgi, Valeria Henderson, David K. Kopka, Stacy Lau, Anna F. Miller, Tracey Moriarty, Theresa Palmore, Tara N. Sawney, Shari Spalding, Chris Tanjutco, Patricia Wortmann, Glenn Zelazny, Adrian M. Frank, Karen M. J Clin Microbiol Virology We evaluated saliva (SAL) specimens for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) testing by comparison of 459 prospectively paired nasopharyngeal (NP) or midturbinate (MT) swabs from 449 individuals with the aim of using saliva for asymptomatic screening. Samples were collected in a drive-through car line for symptomatic individuals (n = 380) and in the emergency department (ED) (n = 69). The percentages of positive and negative agreement of saliva compared to nasopharyngeal swab were 81.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.8% to 90.5%) and 99.8% (95% CI, 98.7% to 100%), respectively. The percent positive agreement increased to 90.0% (95% CI, 74.4% to 96.5%) when considering only samples with moderate to high viral load (cycle threshold [C(T)] for the NP, ≤34). Pools of five saliva specimens were also evaluated on three platforms, bioMérieux NucliSENS easyMAG with ABI 7500Fast (CDC assay), Hologic Panther Fusion, and Roche Cobas 6800. The average loss of signal upon pooling was 2 to 3 C(T) values across the platforms. The sensitivities of detecting a positive specimen in a pool compared with testing individually were 94%, 90%, and 94% for the CDC 2019-nCoV real-time RT-PCR, Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay, and Cobas SARS-CoV-2 test, respectively, with decreased sample detection trending with lower viral load. We conclude that although pooled saliva testing, as collected in this study, is not quite as sensitive as NP/MT testing, saliva testing is adequate to detect individuals with higher viral loads in an asymptomatic screening program, does not require swabs or viral transport medium for collection, and may help to improve voluntary screening compliance for those individuals averse to various forms of nasal collections. American Society for Microbiology 2021-02-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8106731/ /pubmed/33262219 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02486-20 Text en This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Foreign copyrights may apply. https://doi.org/10.1128/ASMCopyrightv2This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted noncommercial re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Virology
Barat, Bidisha
Das, Sanchita
De Giorgi, Valeria
Henderson, David K.
Kopka, Stacy
Lau, Anna F.
Miller, Tracey
Moriarty, Theresa
Palmore, Tara N.
Sawney, Shari
Spalding, Chris
Tanjutco, Patricia
Wortmann, Glenn
Zelazny, Adrian M.
Frank, Karen M.
Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing
title Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing
title_full Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing
title_fullStr Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing
title_full_unstemmed Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing
title_short Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing
title_sort pooled saliva specimens for sars-cov-2 testing
topic Virology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8106731/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33262219
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02486-20
work_keys_str_mv AT baratbidisha pooledsalivaspecimensforsarscov2testing
AT dassanchita pooledsalivaspecimensforsarscov2testing
AT degiorgivaleria pooledsalivaspecimensforsarscov2testing
AT hendersondavidk pooledsalivaspecimensforsarscov2testing
AT kopkastacy pooledsalivaspecimensforsarscov2testing
AT lauannaf pooledsalivaspecimensforsarscov2testing
AT millertracey pooledsalivaspecimensforsarscov2testing
AT moriartytheresa pooledsalivaspecimensforsarscov2testing
AT palmoretaran pooledsalivaspecimensforsarscov2testing
AT sawneyshari pooledsalivaspecimensforsarscov2testing
AT spaldingchris pooledsalivaspecimensforsarscov2testing
AT tanjutcopatricia pooledsalivaspecimensforsarscov2testing
AT wortmannglenn pooledsalivaspecimensforsarscov2testing
AT zelaznyadrianm pooledsalivaspecimensforsarscov2testing
AT frankkarenm pooledsalivaspecimensforsarscov2testing