Cargando…

Saliva as alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR: a multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic validation study

Saliva has been demonstrated as feasible alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab (NOS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection through reverse transcription quantitative/real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). This study compared the diagnostic agreement of conventional NOS, saliva with RNA extraction (SE) a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tee, Michael L., Abrilla, Aedrian A., Tee, Cherica A., Dalmacio, Leslie Michelle M., Villaflor, Vivencio Jose P., Abubakar, Al-Zamzam A., Tagayuna, Pedrito Y., Aquino, Sheldon Steven C., Bernardo, Vicente Aaron L., Matias, Ronald R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9308781/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35871257
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16849-1
_version_ 1784753026869755904
author Tee, Michael L.
Abrilla, Aedrian A.
Tee, Cherica A.
Dalmacio, Leslie Michelle M.
Villaflor, Vivencio Jose P.
Abubakar, Al-Zamzam A.
Tagayuna, Pedrito Y.
Aquino, Sheldon Steven C.
Bernardo, Vicente Aaron L.
Matias, Ronald R.
author_facet Tee, Michael L.
Abrilla, Aedrian A.
Tee, Cherica A.
Dalmacio, Leslie Michelle M.
Villaflor, Vivencio Jose P.
Abubakar, Al-Zamzam A.
Tagayuna, Pedrito Y.
Aquino, Sheldon Steven C.
Bernardo, Vicente Aaron L.
Matias, Ronald R.
author_sort Tee, Michael L.
collection PubMed
description Saliva has been demonstrated as feasible alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab (NOS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection through reverse transcription quantitative/real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). This study compared the diagnostic agreement of conventional NOS, saliva with RNA extraction (SE) and saliva without RNA extraction (SalivaDirect) processing for RT-qPCR in identifying SARS-CoV-2. All techniques were also compared, as separate index tests, to a composite reference standard (CRS) where positive and negative results were defined as SARS-CoV-2 detection in either one or no sample, respectively. Of 517 paired samples, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 150 (29.01%) NOS and 151 (29.21%) saliva specimens. The saliva-based tests were noted to have a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (95% confidence interval) of 92.67% (87.26%, 96.28%), 97.55% (95.40%, 98.87%) and 96.13% (94.09%, 97.62%), respectively, for SE RT-qPCR and 91.33% (85.64%, 95.30%), 98.91% (97.23%, 99.70%) and 96.71% (94.79%, 98.07%), respectively, for SalivaDirect RT-qPCR compared to NOS RT-qPCR. Compared to CRS, all platforms demonstrated statistically similar diagnostic performance. These findings suggest that both conventional and streamlined saliva RT-qPCR are at least non-inferior to conventional NOS RT-qPCR in detecting SARS-CoV-2.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9308781
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93087812022-07-25 Saliva as alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR: a multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic validation study Tee, Michael L. Abrilla, Aedrian A. Tee, Cherica A. Dalmacio, Leslie Michelle M. Villaflor, Vivencio Jose P. Abubakar, Al-Zamzam A. Tagayuna, Pedrito Y. Aquino, Sheldon Steven C. Bernardo, Vicente Aaron L. Matias, Ronald R. Sci Rep Article Saliva has been demonstrated as feasible alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab (NOS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection through reverse transcription quantitative/real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). This study compared the diagnostic agreement of conventional NOS, saliva with RNA extraction (SE) and saliva without RNA extraction (SalivaDirect) processing for RT-qPCR in identifying SARS-CoV-2. All techniques were also compared, as separate index tests, to a composite reference standard (CRS) where positive and negative results were defined as SARS-CoV-2 detection in either one or no sample, respectively. Of 517 paired samples, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 150 (29.01%) NOS and 151 (29.21%) saliva specimens. The saliva-based tests were noted to have a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (95% confidence interval) of 92.67% (87.26%, 96.28%), 97.55% (95.40%, 98.87%) and 96.13% (94.09%, 97.62%), respectively, for SE RT-qPCR and 91.33% (85.64%, 95.30%), 98.91% (97.23%, 99.70%) and 96.71% (94.79%, 98.07%), respectively, for SalivaDirect RT-qPCR compared to NOS RT-qPCR. Compared to CRS, all platforms demonstrated statistically similar diagnostic performance. These findings suggest that both conventional and streamlined saliva RT-qPCR are at least non-inferior to conventional NOS RT-qPCR in detecting SARS-CoV-2. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-07-23 /pmc/articles/PMC9308781/ /pubmed/35871257 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16849-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Tee, Michael L.
Abrilla, Aedrian A.
Tee, Cherica A.
Dalmacio, Leslie Michelle M.
Villaflor, Vivencio Jose P.
Abubakar, Al-Zamzam A.
Tagayuna, Pedrito Y.
Aquino, Sheldon Steven C.
Bernardo, Vicente Aaron L.
Matias, Ronald R.
Saliva as alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR: a multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic validation study
title Saliva as alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR: a multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic validation study
title_full Saliva as alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR: a multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic validation study
title_fullStr Saliva as alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR: a multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic validation study
title_full_unstemmed Saliva as alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR: a multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic validation study
title_short Saliva as alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR: a multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic validation study
title_sort saliva as alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab for sars-cov-2 detection by rt-qpcr: a multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic validation study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9308781/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35871257
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16849-1
work_keys_str_mv AT teemichaell salivaasalternativetonasooropharyngealswabforsarscov2detectionbyrtqpcramulticentercrosssectionaldiagnosticvalidationstudy
AT abrillaaedriana salivaasalternativetonasooropharyngealswabforsarscov2detectionbyrtqpcramulticentercrosssectionaldiagnosticvalidationstudy
AT teechericaa salivaasalternativetonasooropharyngealswabforsarscov2detectionbyrtqpcramulticentercrosssectionaldiagnosticvalidationstudy
AT dalmaciolesliemichellem salivaasalternativetonasooropharyngealswabforsarscov2detectionbyrtqpcramulticentercrosssectionaldiagnosticvalidationstudy
AT villaflorvivenciojosep salivaasalternativetonasooropharyngealswabforsarscov2detectionbyrtqpcramulticentercrosssectionaldiagnosticvalidationstudy
AT abubakaralzamzama salivaasalternativetonasooropharyngealswabforsarscov2detectionbyrtqpcramulticentercrosssectionaldiagnosticvalidationstudy
AT tagayunapedritoy salivaasalternativetonasooropharyngealswabforsarscov2detectionbyrtqpcramulticentercrosssectionaldiagnosticvalidationstudy
AT aquinosheldonstevenc salivaasalternativetonasooropharyngealswabforsarscov2detectionbyrtqpcramulticentercrosssectionaldiagnosticvalidationstudy
AT bernardovicenteaaronl salivaasalternativetonasooropharyngealswabforsarscov2detectionbyrtqpcramulticentercrosssectionaldiagnosticvalidationstudy
AT matiasronaldr salivaasalternativetonasooropharyngealswabforsarscov2detectionbyrtqpcramulticentercrosssectionaldiagnosticvalidationstudy