Cargando…

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Detection from Saliva Sampling and Oropharyngeal Swab

We examined the detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) of side-by-side saliva and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) samples from 639 symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects, of which 47 subjects were found to be positive for SARS-...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Clemmensen, Mia de Laurent, Bendixen, Kamilla Kolding, Flugt, Katharina, Pilgaard, Pernille, Christensen, Ulf Bech
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Society for Microbiology 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9604035/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36129278
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01422-22
_version_ 1784817709996834816
author Clemmensen, Mia de Laurent
Bendixen, Kamilla Kolding
Flugt, Katharina
Pilgaard, Pernille
Christensen, Ulf Bech
author_facet Clemmensen, Mia de Laurent
Bendixen, Kamilla Kolding
Flugt, Katharina
Pilgaard, Pernille
Christensen, Ulf Bech
author_sort Clemmensen, Mia de Laurent
collection PubMed
description We examined the detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) of side-by-side saliva and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) samples from 639 symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects, of which 47 subjects were found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the OPS or saliva sample or both. It was found that the detection rate (93.6% for both OPS and saliva) as well as the sensitivity and specificity were comparable between the two sampling methods in this cohort. The sensitivity was 0.932 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.818 to 0.977) and the specificity was 0.995 (95% CI, 0.985 to 0.998), both for saliva when OPS sampling was used as the reference and for OPS when saliva was used as the reference. Furthermore, the Cohen’s kappa value was 0.926 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.985), indicating strong agreement between the two sampling methods. In addition, the viral RNA stability in pure saliva and saliva mixed with preservation buffers was examined following storage at room temperature and at 4°C. It was found that pure saliva kept the viral RNA stable for 9 days at both temperatures and that the type of preservation buffer can either enhance or reduce the stability of the RNA. We conclude that self-administered saliva sampling is an attractive alternative to oropharyngeal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and it might be useful in large-scale testing. IMPORTANCE It is not inconceivable that we will witness recurring surges of COVID-19 before the pandemic finally recedes. It is therefore still relevant to look for feasible, simple, and flexible screening methods so that schools, workplaces, and communities in general can avoid lockdowns. In this work, we analyzed two different sampling methods: oropharyngeal swabs and saliva collection. Oropharyngeal swabs must be collected by trained health personnel at clinics, whereas self-assisted saliva collection can be performed at any given location. It was found that the two sampling methods were comparable. Saliva sampling is a simple method that allows easy mass testing using minimal resources from the existing health care system, and this method may therefore prove to be an effective tool for containing the COVID-19 pandemic.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9604035
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher American Society for Microbiology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96040352022-10-27 Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Detection from Saliva Sampling and Oropharyngeal Swab Clemmensen, Mia de Laurent Bendixen, Kamilla Kolding Flugt, Katharina Pilgaard, Pernille Christensen, Ulf Bech Microbiol Spectr Research Article We examined the detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) of side-by-side saliva and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) samples from 639 symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects, of which 47 subjects were found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the OPS or saliva sample or both. It was found that the detection rate (93.6% for both OPS and saliva) as well as the sensitivity and specificity were comparable between the two sampling methods in this cohort. The sensitivity was 0.932 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.818 to 0.977) and the specificity was 0.995 (95% CI, 0.985 to 0.998), both for saliva when OPS sampling was used as the reference and for OPS when saliva was used as the reference. Furthermore, the Cohen’s kappa value was 0.926 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.985), indicating strong agreement between the two sampling methods. In addition, the viral RNA stability in pure saliva and saliva mixed with preservation buffers was examined following storage at room temperature and at 4°C. It was found that pure saliva kept the viral RNA stable for 9 days at both temperatures and that the type of preservation buffer can either enhance or reduce the stability of the RNA. We conclude that self-administered saliva sampling is an attractive alternative to oropharyngeal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and it might be useful in large-scale testing. IMPORTANCE It is not inconceivable that we will witness recurring surges of COVID-19 before the pandemic finally recedes. It is therefore still relevant to look for feasible, simple, and flexible screening methods so that schools, workplaces, and communities in general can avoid lockdowns. In this work, we analyzed two different sampling methods: oropharyngeal swabs and saliva collection. Oropharyngeal swabs must be collected by trained health personnel at clinics, whereas self-assisted saliva collection can be performed at any given location. It was found that the two sampling methods were comparable. Saliva sampling is a simple method that allows easy mass testing using minimal resources from the existing health care system, and this method may therefore prove to be an effective tool for containing the COVID-19 pandemic. American Society for Microbiology 2022-09-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9604035/ /pubmed/36129278 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01422-22 Text en Copyright © 2022 Clemmensen et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research Article
Clemmensen, Mia de Laurent
Bendixen, Kamilla Kolding
Flugt, Katharina
Pilgaard, Pernille
Christensen, Ulf Bech
Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Detection from Saliva Sampling and Oropharyngeal Swab
title Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Detection from Saliva Sampling and Oropharyngeal Swab
title_full Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Detection from Saliva Sampling and Oropharyngeal Swab
title_fullStr Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Detection from Saliva Sampling and Oropharyngeal Swab
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Detection from Saliva Sampling and Oropharyngeal Swab
title_short Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Detection from Saliva Sampling and Oropharyngeal Swab
title_sort comparison of sars-cov-2 detection from saliva sampling and oropharyngeal swab
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9604035/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36129278
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01422-22
work_keys_str_mv AT clemmensenmiadelaurent comparisonofsarscov2detectionfromsalivasamplingandoropharyngealswab
AT bendixenkamillakolding comparisonofsarscov2detectionfromsalivasamplingandoropharyngealswab
AT flugtkatharina comparisonofsarscov2detectionfromsalivasamplingandoropharyngealswab
AT pilgaardpernille comparisonofsarscov2detectionfromsalivasamplingandoropharyngealswab
AT christensenulfbech comparisonofsarscov2detectionfromsalivasamplingandoropharyngealswab