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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |