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

Ethno-demographic disparities in humoral responses to the COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare workers

The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on global health, but rapid vaccine administration resulted in a significant decline in morbidity and mortality rates worldwide. In this study, we sought to explore the temporal changes in the humoral immune response against SARS-CoV-2 healthcare workers (HCWs) in Augusta, GA, USA, and investigate any potential associations with ethno-demographic features. Specifically, we aimed to compare the naturally infected individuals with naïve individuals to understand the immune response dynamics after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. A total of 290 HCWs were included and assessed prospectively in this study. COVID status was determined using a saliva-based COVID assay. Neutralizing antibody (NAb) levels were quantified using a chemiluminescent immunoassay system, and IgG levels were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method. We examined the changes in antibody levels among participants using different statistical tests including logistic regression and multiple correspondence analysis. Our findings revealed a significant decline in NAb and IgG levels at 8-12 months postvaccination. Furthermore, a multivariable analysis indicated that this decline was more pronounced in White HCWs (odds ratio [OR] = 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-4.08, p = 0.02) and IgG (OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.04-4.11, p = 0.03) among the whole cohort. Booster doses significantly increased IgG and NAb levels, while a decline in antibody levels was observed in participants without booster doses at 12 months postvaccination. Our results highlight the importance of understanding the dynamics of immune response and the potential influence of demographic factors on waning immunity to SARS-CoV-2. In addition, our findings emphasize the value of booster doses to ensure durable immunity.

Salivary SARS-CoV-2 RNA for diagnosis of COVID-19 patients: a systematic revisew and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy

Accurate, self-collected, and non-invasive diagnostics are critical to perform mass-screening diagnostic tests for COVID-19. This systematic review with meta-analysis evaluated the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of salivary diagnostics for COVID-19 based on SARS-CoV-2 RNA compared with the current reference tests using a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and/or oropharyngeal swab (OPS). An electronic search was performed in seven databases to find COVID-19 diagnostic studies simultaneously using saliva and NPS/OPS tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. The search resulted in 10,902 records, of which 44 studies were considered eligible. The total sample consisted of 14,043 participants from 21 countries. The accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity for saliva compared with the NPS/OPS was 94.3% (95%CI= 92.1;95.9), 96.4% (95%CI= 96.1;96.7), and 89.2% (95%CI= 85.5;92.0), respectively. Besides, the sensitivity of NPS/OPS was 90.3% (95%CI= 86.4;93.2) and saliva was 86.4% (95%CI= 82.1;89.8) compared to the combination of saliva and NPS/OPS as the gold standard. These findings suggest a similarity in SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection between NPS/OPS swabs and saliva, and the association of both testing approaches as a reference standard can increase by 3.6% the SARS-CoV-2 detection compared with NPS/OPS alone. This study supports saliva as an attractive alternative for diagnostic platforms to provide a non-invasive detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Pooled RNA-extraction-free testing of saliva for the detection of SARS-CoV-2

The key to limiting SARS-CoV-2 spread is to identify virus-infected individuals (both symptomatic and asymptomatic) and isolate them from the general population. Hence, routine weekly testing for SARS-CoV-2 in all asymptomatic (capturing both infected and non-infected) individuals is considered critical in situations where a large number of individuals co-congregate such as schools, prisons, aged care facilities and industrial workplaces. Such testing is hampered by operational issues such as cost, test availability, access to healthcare workers and throughput. We developed the SalivaDirect RT-qPCR assay to increase access to SARS-CoV-2 testing via a low-cost, streamlined protocol using self-collected saliva. To expand the single sample testing protocol, we explored multiple extraction-free pooled saliva testing workflows prior to testing with the SalivaDirect RT-qPCR assay. A pool size of five, with or without heat inactivation at 65 °C for 15 min prior to testing resulted in a positive agreement of 98% and 89%, respectively, and an increased Ct value shift of 1.37 and 1.99 as compared to individual testing of the positive clinical saliva specimens. Applying this shift in Ct value to 316 individual, sequentially collected, SARS-CoV-2 positive saliva specimen results reported from six clinical laboratories using the original SalivaDirect assay, 100% of the samples would have been detected (Ct value < 45) had they been tested in the 1:5 pool strategy. The availability of multiple pooled testing workflows for laboratories can increase test turnaround time, permitting results in a more actionable time frame while minimizing testing costs and changes to laboratory operational flow.

Reduction of SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load with pre-procedural mouth rinses: a randomised, controlled, clinical trial

Introduction The purpose of this study was to test the short-term efficacy of four commercial mouthwashes versus water in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the oral cavity over clinically relevant time points.Methods In total, 32 subjects that were proven SARS-CoV-2-positive via polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based diagnostic test were recruited and randomised into five parallel arms. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were compared in saliva samples between the groups, as well as within the groups at baseline (pre-rinse), zero hours, one hour and two hours post-rinse, using SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-PCR analysis.Results We observed a significant increase in Ct values in saliva samples collected immediately after rinsing with all the four mouthwashes - 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate, 1.5% hydrogen peroxide, 1% povidone iodine, or Listerine - compared to water. A sustained increase in Ct values for up to two hours was only observed in the Listerine and chlorohexidine gluconate groups. We were not able to sufficiently power this clinical trial, so the results remain notional but encouraging and supportive of findings in other emerging mouthwash studies on COVID-19, warranting additional investigations.Conclusions Our evidence suggests that in a clinical setting, prophylactic rinses with Listerine or chlorhexidine gluconate can potentially reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the oral cavity for up to two hours. While limited in statistical power due to the difficulty in obtaining this data, we advocate for pre-procedural mouthwashing, like handwashing, as an economical and safe additional precaution to help mitigate the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from a potentially infected patient to providers.

PARIS and SPARTA: Finding the Achilles' Heel of SARS-CoV-2

To understand reinfection rates and correlates of protection for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), we established eight different longitudinal cohorts in 2020 under the umbrella of the PARIS (Protection Associated with Rapid Immunity to SARS-CoV-2)/SPARTA (SARS SeroPrevalence And Respiratory Tract Assessment) studies. Here, we describe the PARIS/SPARTA cohorts, the harmonized assays and analysis that are performed across the cohorts, as well as case definitions for SARS-CoV-2 infection and reinfection that have been established by the team of PARIS/SPARTA investigators. IMPORTANCE Determining reinfection rates and correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection induced by both natural infection and vaccination is of high significance for the prevention and control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Furthermore, understanding reinfections or infection after vaccination and the role immune escape plays in these scenarios will inform the need for updates of the current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and help update guidelines suitable for the postpandemic world.

Saliva versus Upper Respiratory Swabs: Equivalent for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 University Screening while Saliva Positivity Is Prolonged After Symptom Onset in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalized Patients

Reopening of schools and workplaces during the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires affordable and convenient population-wide screening methods. Although upper respiratory swab is considered the preferable specimen for testing, saliva offers several advantages, such as easier collection and lower cost. In this study, we compared the performance of saliva with upper respiratory swab for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection. Paired saliva and anterior nares specimens were collected from a largely asymptomatic cohort of students, faculty, and staff from the University of Pennsylvania. Paired saliva and combined nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal (NP/OP) specimens were also collected from hospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 following confirmatory testing. All study samples were tested by real-time PCR in the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. In the university cohort, positivity rates were 37 of 2500 for saliva (sensitivity, 86.1%) and 36 of 2500 for anterior nares (sensitivity, 83.7%), with an overall agreement of 99.6%. In the hospital study cohort, positivity rates were 35 of 49 for saliva (sensitivity, 89.3%) and 28 of 49 for NP/OP (sensitivity, 75.8%), with an overall agreement of 75.6%. A larger proportion of saliva than NP/OP samples tested positive after 4 days of symptom onset in hospitalized patients. Our results show that saliva has an acceptable sensitivity and is comparable to upper respiratory swab, supporting the use of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection in both symptomatic and asymptomatic populations.

Mass screening is a key component to fight against SARS-CoV-2 and return to normalcy

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had highly transmissible and pathogenic, which caused serious economic loss and hazard to public health. Different countries have developed strategies to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic that fit their epidemiological situations, capacities, and values. Mass screening combined with control measures rapidly reduced the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically highlighted the essential role of diagnostics capacity in the control of communicable diseases. Mass screening has been increasingly used to detect suspected COVID-19 cases and their close contacts, asymptomatic case, patients attending fever clinics, high-risk populations, employees, even all population to identify infectious individuals. Mass screening is a key component to fight against SARS-CoV-2 and return to normalcy. Here we describe the history of mass screening, define the scope of mass screening, describe its application scenarios, and discuss the impact and challenges of using this approach to control COVID-19. We conclude that through a comprehension screening program and strong testing capabilities, mass screening could help us return to normalcy more quickly.

Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection: a scoping review

Objectives

This scoping review aims to summarize the diagnostic value of saliva assessed from current studies that (1) compare its performance in reverse transcriptase‐polymerase chain reaction testing to nasopharyngeal swabs, (2) evaluate its performance in rapid and point‐of‐care COVID‐19 diagnostic tests, and (3) explore its use as a specimen for detecting anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies.

Materials and Methods

A systematic search was performed on the following databases: Medline and Embase (Ovid), World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Global Health (Ovid) from January 2019 to September 2021. Of the 657 publications identified from the searches, n = 146 articles were included in the final scoping review.

Results

Our findings showcase that salivary samples exceed nasopharyngeal swabs in detecting SARS‐CoV‐2 using reverse transcriptase‐polymerase chain reaction testing in several studies. A select number of rapid antigen and point‐of‐care tests from the literature were also identified capable of high detection rates using saliva. Moreover, anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies have been shown to be detectable in saliva through biochemical assays.

Conclusion

We highlight the potential of saliva as an all‐rounded specimen in detecting SARS‐CoV‐2. However, future large‐scale clinical studies will be needed to support its widespread use as a non‐invasive clinical specimen for COVID‐19 testing.

Clinical validation of a multiplex PCR-based detection assay using saliva or nasopharyngeal samples for SARS-Cov-2, influenza A and B

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant diversion of human and material resources to COVID-19 diagnostics, to the extent that influenza viruses and co-infection in COVID-19 patients remains undocumented and pose serious public-health consequences. We optimized and validated a highly sensitive RT-PCR based multiplex-assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B viruses in a single-test. This study evaluated clinical specimens (n = 1411), 1019 saliva and 392 nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), tested using two-assays: FDA-EUA approved SARS-CoV-2 assay that targets N and ORF1ab gene, and the PKamp-RT-PCR based assay that targets SARS-CoV-2, influenza viruses A and B. Of the 1019 saliva samples, 17.0% (174/1019) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using either assay. The detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 was higher with the multiplex assay compared to SARS-specific assay [91.9% (160/174) vs. 87.9% (153/174)], respectively. Of the 392 NPS samples, 10.4% (41/392) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using either assay. The detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 was higher with the multiplex assay compared to SARS-specific assay [97.5% (40/41) vs. 92.1% (39/41)], respectively. This study presents clinical validation of a multiplex-PCR assay for testing SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B viruses, using NPS and saliva samples, and demonstrates the feasibility of implementing the assay without disrupting the existing laboratory workflow.

Mouth Washing Impaired SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Saliva

BACKGROUND

A previous study demonstrated the performance of the Salivette® (SARSTEDT, Numbrecht, Germany) as a homogeneous saliva collection system to diagnose COVID-19 by RT-qPCR, notably for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. However, for convalescent patients, the corroboration of molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 in paired nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) and saliva samples was unsatisfactory.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present work was to assess the concordance level of SARS-CoV-2 detection between paired sampling of NPSs and saliva collected with Salivette® at two time points, with ten days of interval.

RESULTS

A total of 319 paired samples from 145 outpatients (OP) and 51 healthcare workers (HW) were collected. Unfortunately, at day ten, 73 individuals were lost to follow-up, explaining some kinetic missing data. Due to significant waiting rates at hospitals, most of the patients ate and/or drank while waiting for their turn. Consequently, mouth washing was systematically proposed prior to saliva collection. None of the HW were diagnosed as SARS-CoV-2 positive using NPS or saliva specimens at both time points (n = 95) by RT-qPCR. The virus was detected in 56.3% (n = 126/224) of the NPS samples from OP, but solely 26.8% (n = 60/224) of the paired saliva specimens. The detection of the internal cellular control, the human RNase P, in more than 98% of the saliva samples, underlined that the low sensitivity of saliva specimens (45.2%) for SARS-CoV-2 detection was not attributed to an improper saliva sample storing or RNA extraction.

CONCLUSIONS

This work revealed that mouth washing decreased viral load of buccal cavity conducting to impairment of SARS-CoV-2 detection. Viral loads in saliva neo-produced appeared insufficient for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2. At the time when saliva tests could be a rapid, simple and non-invasive strategy to assess large scale schoolchildren in France, the determination of the performance of saliva collection becomes imperative to standardize procedures.

Making a Difference: Adaptation of the Clinical Laboratory in Response to the Rapidly Evolving COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, led to unprecedented demands assigned to clinical diagnostic laboratories worldwide, forcing them to make significant changes to their regular workflow as they adapted to new diagnostic tests and sample volumes. Herein, we summarize the modifications/adaptation the laboratory had to exercise to cope with rapidly evolving situations in the current pandemic. In the first phase of the pandemic, the laboratory validated 2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction–based assays to test ∼1000 samples/day and rapidly modified procedures and validated various preanalytical and analytical steps to overcome the supply chain constraints that would have otherwise derailed testing efforts. Further, the pooling strategy was validated for wide-scale population screening using nasopharyngeal swab samples and saliva samples. The translational research arm of the laboratory pursued several initiatives to understand the variable clinical manifestations that this virus presented in the population. The phylogenetic evolution of the virus was investigated using next-generation sequencing technology. The laboratory has initiated the formation of a consortium that includes groups investigating genomes at the level of large structural variants, using genome optical mapping via this collaborative global effort. This article summarizes our journey as the laboratory has sought to adapt and continue to positively contribute to the unprecedented demands and challenges of this rapidly evolving pandemic.

Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Rapid review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients and screening of populations for SARS-CoV-2 infection require access to straightforward, low-cost and high-throughput testing. The recommended nasopharyngeal swab tests are limited by the need of trained professionals and specific consumables and this procedure is poorly accepted as a screening method In contrast, saliva sampling can be self-administered.

METHODS

In order to compare saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, we designed a meta-analysis searching in PubMed up to December 29th, 2020 with the key words "(SARS-CoV-2 OR COVID-19 OR COVID19) AND (salivary OR saliva OR oral fluid)) NOT (review[Publication Type]) NOT (PrePrint[Publication Type])" applying the following criteria: records published in peer reviewed scientific journals, in English, with at least 15 nasopharyngeal/orapharyngeal swabs and saliva paired samples tested by RT-PCR, studies with available raw data including numbers of positive and negative tests with the two sampling methods. For all studies, concordance and sensitivity were calculated and then pooled in a random-effects model.

FINDINGS

A total of 377 studies were retrieved, of which 50 were eligible, reporting on 16,473 pairs of nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal and saliva samples. Meta-analysis showed high concordance, 92.5% (95%CI: 89.5-94.7), across studies and pooled sensitivities of 86.5% (95%CI: 83.4-89.1) and 92.0% (95%CI: 89.1-94.2) from saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs respectively. Heterogeneity across studies was 72.0% for saliva and 85.0% for nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs.

INTERPRETATION

Our meta-analysis strongly suggests that saliva could be used for frequent testing of COVID-19 patients and "en masse" screening of populations.

SalivaSTAT: Direct-PCR and Pooling of Saliva Samples Collected in Healthcare and Community Setting for SARS-CoV-2 Mass Surveillance

Objectives: Limitations of widespread current COVID-19 diagnostic testing exist in both the pre-analytical and analytical stages. To alleviate these limitations, we developed a universal saliva processing protocol (SalivaSTAT) that would enable an extraction-free RT-PCR test using commercially available RT-PCR kits. Methods: We optimized saliva collection devices, heat-shock treatment, and homogenization. Saliva samples (879) previously tested using the FDA-EUA method were reevaluated with the optimized SalivaSTAT protocol using two widely available commercial RT-PCR kits. A five-sample pooling strategy was evaluated as per FDA guidelines. Results: Saliva collection (done without any media) showed performance comparable to that of the FDA-EUA method. The SalivaSTAT protocol was optimized by incubating saliva samples at 95 °C for 30-min and homogenization, followed by RT-PCR assay. The clinical sample evaluation of 630 saliva samples using the SalivaSTAT protocol with PerkinElmer (600-samples) and CDC (30-samples) RT-PCR assay achieved positive (PPA) and negative percent agreements (NPAs) of 95.0% and 100%, respectively. The LoD was established as ~60–180 copies/mL by absolute quantification. Furthermore, a five-sample-pooling evaluation using 250 saliva samples achieved a PPA and NPA of 92% and 100%, respectively. Conclusion: We have optimized an extraction-free RT-PCR assay for saliva samples that demonstrates comparable performance to FDA-EUA assay (Extraction and RT-PCR).