Cargando…

Clinical Validation of a Sensitive Test for Saliva Collected in Healthcare and Community Settings with Pooling Utility for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Mass Surveillance

The clinical performance of saliva compared with nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) has shown conflicting results in healthcare and community settings. In the present study, a total of 429 matched NPS and saliva sample pairs, collected in either healthcare or community setting, were evaluated. Phase-1 (pro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sahajpal, Nikhil S., Mondal, Ashis K., Ananth, Sudha, Njau, Allan, Ahluwalia, Pankaj, Kota, Vamsi, Caspary, Kevin, Ross, Ted M., Farrell, Michael, Shannon, Michael P., Fulzele, Sadanand, Chaubey, Alka, Hegde, Madhuri, Rojiani, Amyn M., Kolhe, Ravindra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Association for Molecular Pathology and American Society for Investigative Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8129802/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33957320
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2021.04.005
Descripción
Sumario:The clinical performance of saliva compared with nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) has shown conflicting results in healthcare and community settings. In the present study, a total of 429 matched NPS and saliva sample pairs, collected in either healthcare or community setting, were evaluated. Phase-1 (protocol U) tested 240 matched NPS and saliva sample pairs; phase 2 (SalivaAll protocol) tested 189 matched NPS and saliva sample pairs, with an additional sample homogenization step before RNA extraction. A total of 85 saliva samples were evaluated with both protocols. In phase-1, 28.3% (68/240) samples tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from saliva, NPS, or both. The detection rate from saliva was lower compared with that from NPS samples (50.0% versus 89.7%). In phase-2, 50.2% (95/189) samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from saliva, NPS, or both. The detection rate from saliva was higher compared with that from NPS samples (97.8% versus 78.9%). Of the 85 saliva samples evaluated with both protocols, the detection rate was 100% for samples tested with SalivaAll, and 36.7% with protocol U. The limit of detection with SalivaAll protocol was 20 to 60 copies/mL. The pooled testing approach demonstrated a 95% positive and 100% negative percentage agreement. This protocol for saliva samples results in higher sensitivity compared with NPS samples and breaks the barrier to using pooled saliva for SARS-CoV-2 testing.