Saliva is not a useful diagnostic specimen in children with Coronavirus Disease 2019

SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in saliva samples: Usefulness and limitations

Saliva samples are important for diagnosis, because they are noninvasive and easy to acquire. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the value saliva samples have in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in comparison to nasal swabs and a new system named CovidCheck. A standard methodology identified the virus in 185 nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva samples revealing a sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of 82,100,100 and 94.67%, respectively for saliva samples. Viral presence in saliva samples with the standard methodology in comparison to the CovidCheck system was evaluated in 67 samples with sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of 68, 81, 68 and 81%, respectively. In conclusion, our results highlight the usefulness saliva samples have in detecting respiratory viral infections. However, presence of viral inhibitors and viral load in saliva, and the patient's clinical status should be considered as they might affect amplifying systems results.

Saliva-based Proteinase K method: A rapid and reliable diagnostic tool for the detection of SARS-COV-2 in children

Early and accurate detection of viruses in children might help prevent transmission and severe diseases. In this study, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) detection in children was evaluated using saliva specimens with a Proteinase K (PTK)-based RNA preparation, as saliva collection is a simple and noninvasive procedure, even in young children, with fewer concerns about sample contamination. The saliva-based PTK and the conventional paired nasopharyngeal aspiration (NPA)-based detection methods were compared between COVID-19-positive and -negative children. In addition, the detection rate for SARS-COV-2 and the difference between admission and discharge by the saliva-based PTK method was tested in COVID-19 patients. The diagnostic accuracy of the saliva-based PTK method was 98.8% compared to NP swab-based reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Saliva samples showed high sensitivity (94.1%) and specificity (100%) when using the PTK method. Furthermore, the saliva-based PTK method significantly reduced the test processing time by 2 h. Notably, Ct values at discharge increased in saliva samples compared with those at admission, which might indicate patients' clinical conditions or virus activity. In conclusion, the saliva-based PTK implemented in this study streamlines RNA extraction, making the process faster, safer, and more cost-effective, demonstrating that this method is a rapid and reliable diagnostic tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection in children.

Comparative study on Saliva and Nasopharyngeal swabs and the outcome of RT-PCR test in patients with mild symptoms of SARS-CoV-2

AIM

A simple and reliable method for diagnosing COVID 19 infections is the needed. The role of saliva in the transmission of the infection has already been established.

METHOD

Saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs from patients suspected to have COVID 19 infections were taken simultaneously, and the results of the RT-PCR were compared.

RESULT

Total 405 samples were collected, of which 250 males and 155 females. In the 391 samples included for analysis, 370 (94.63%) samples were found to have concordance results, and 21 (5.37%) samples had discordant results.

CONCLUSION

The use of saliva to diagnose COVID 19 infection is reliable, and its use can be recommended.

Recent advances in RNA sample preparation techniques for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and gargle

Molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 in gargle and saliva complements the standard analysis of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) specimens. Although gargle and saliva specimens can be readily obtained non-invasively, appropriate collection and processing of gargle and saliva specimens are critical to the accuracy and sensitivity of the overall analytical method. This review highlights challenges and recent advances in the treatment of gargle and saliva samples for subsequent analysis using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and isothermal amplification techniques. Important considerations include appropriate collection of gargle and saliva samples, on-site inactivation of viruses in the sample, preservation of viral RNA, extraction and concentration of viral RNA, removal of substances that inhibit nucleic acid amplification reactions, and the compatibility of sample treatment protocols with the subsequent nucleic acid amplification and detection techniques. The principles and approaches discussed in this review are applicable to molecular detection of other microbial pathogens.

Comparison between Nasopharyngeal and Saliva Samples for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses in Children with Acute Lower Respiratory Tract Infections: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of salivary swabs (SS) to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been implemented and widely studied in adults and children. However, the role of SS in detecting other common respiratory viruses in children is poorly investigated.

METHODS

Children younger than 18 years of age admitted with respiratory signs and symptoms underwent both nasopharyngeal and SS procedures. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of SS were calculated, considering the nasopharyngeal swab result as the gold standard.

RESULTS

A total of 83 patients (44 females, 53%) underwent both nasopharyngeal and SS procedures. Overall, the sensitivity of SS was 49.4%. Sensitivity according to different respiratory viruses ranged from 0% to 71.43%, while the specificity ranged from 96% to 100%. Negative predictive value ranged from 68.06% to 98.8%, while positive predictive value ranged from 0 to 100%. SS sensitivity in patients younger than 12 months of age was 39.47%, while in patients older than or equal to 12 months of age it was 57.78%. Patients with negative SS had a significantly lower median age (8.5 months (15.25) vs. 23 months (34), p = 0.001) and a significantly lower quantity of median saliva collected for salivary analysis (0 μL (213) vs. 300 μL (100), p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

SS has a relatively low sensitivity in detecting common respiratory viruses in children with LRTI, with a lower probability in younger children (and in particular those younger than 6 months of age) or those from whom we have collected lesser amounts of saliva. New strategies to improve saliva collection are needed for testing on a larger study population.

Oral saliva swab reverse transcription PCR for Covid-19 in the paediatric population

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the performance of oral saliva swab (OSS) reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) compared with RT-PCR and antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) on nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) for SARS-CoV-2 in children.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional multicentre diagnostic study.

SETTING

Study nested in a prospective, observational cohort (EPICO-AEP) performed between February and March 2021 including 10 hospitals in Spain.

PATIENTS

Children from 0 to 18 years with symptoms compatible with Covid-19 of ≤5 days of duration were included. Two NPS samples (Ag-RDT and RT-PCR) and one OSS sample for RT-PCR were collected.

MAIN OUTCOME

Performance of Ag-RDT and RT-PCR on NPS and RT-PCR on OSS sample for SARS-CoV-2.

RESULTS

1174 children were included, aged 3.8 years (IQR 1.7-9.0); 73/1174 (6.2%) patients tested positive by at least one of the techniques. Sensitivity and specificity of OSS RT-PCR were 72.1% (95% CI 59.7 to 81.9) and 99.6% (95% CI 99 to 99.9), respectively, versus 61.8% (95% CI 49.1 to 73) and 99.9% (95% CI 99.4 to 100) for the Ag-RDT. Kappa index was 0.79 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.88) for OSS RT-PCR and 0.74 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.84) for Ag-RDT versus NPS RT-PCR.

CONCLUSIONS

RT-PCR on the OSS sample is an accurate option for SARS-CoV-2 testing in children. A less intrusive technique for younger patients, who usually are tested frequently, might increase the number of patients tested.

Sensitivity analysis of rapid antigen tests for the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant detection from nasopharyngeal swab samples collected in Santiago of Chile

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be a concern and keeps global health authorities on alert. The RT-PCR technique has been the gold-standard assay for detecting the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, rapid antigen tests (RATs) have been widely used to increase the number of tests faster and more efficiently in the population. Nevertheless, the appearance of new viral variants, with genomic mutations associated with greater contagiousness and immune evasion, highlights the need to evaluate the sensitivity of these RATs. This report evaluates the sensitivity of SD Biosensor-Roche, Panbio™, and Clinitest® RATs widely used in Santiago de Chile in the detection of the Omicron variant from Nasopharyngeal samples (NPSs), the most predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant in Chile and the world. SD Biosensor-Roche shows a detection sensitivity of 95.7% in the viral amplification range of 20 ≤ Cq < 25, while Panbio™ and Clinitest® show 100% and 91.3%, respectively. In the viral amplification ranges of 25 ≤ Cq < 30, the detection sensitivity decreased to 28% for SD Biosensor-Roche, 32% for Panbio™, and 72% for Clinitest®. This study indicates that the tested RATs have high sensitivity in detecting the Omicron variant of concern (VOC) at high viral loads. By contrast, its sensitivity decreases at low viral loads. Therefore, it is suggested to limit the use of RATs as an active search method, considering that infections in patients are increasingly associated with lower viral loads of SARS-CoV-2. These antecedents could prevent contagion outbreaks and reduce the underestimation of the current Omicron variant circulation at the local level.

Salivary testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the pediatric population: a diagnostic accuracy study

BACKGROUND

Accurate and timely testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the pediatric population is crucial to control the COVID-19 pandemic; saliva testing has been proposed as a less invasive alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs. We sought to compare the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using saliva versus nasopharyngeal swab in the pediatric population, and to determine the optimum time of testing for SARS-CoV-2 using saliva.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal diagnostic study in Ottawa, Canada, from Jan. 19 to Mar. 26, 2021. Children aged 3-17 years were eligible if they exhibited symptoms of COVID-19, had been identified as a high-risk or close contact to someone confirmed positive for SARS-CoV-2 or had travelled outside Canada in the previous 14 days. Participants provided both nasopharyngeal swab and saliva samples. Saliva was collected using a self-collection kit (DNA Genotek, OM-505) or a sponge-based kit (DNA Genotek, ORE-100) if they could not provide a saliva sample into a tube.

RESULTS

Among 1580 paired nasopharyngeal and saliva tests, 60 paired samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Forty-four (73.3%) were concordant-positive results and 16 (26.6%) were discordant, among which 8 were positive only on nasopharyngeal swab and 8 were positive only on saliva testing. The sensitivity of saliva was 84.6% (95% confidence interval 71.9%-93.1%).

INTERPRETATION

Salivary testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the pediatric population is less invasive and shows similar detection of SARS-CoV-2 to nasopharyngeal swabs. It may therefore provide a feasible alternative for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children.

Comparison of Mid-turbinate Nasal Swabs, Saliva, and Nasopharyngeal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Testing in Pediatric Outpatients

CONTEXT.—

Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic and asymptomatic children remains integral to care, particularly for supporting return to and attendance in schools. The concordance of SARS-CoV-2 detection in children, using various specimen types, has not been widely studied.

OBJECTIVE.—

To compare 3 sample types for SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing in children, collected and tested at a single facility.

DESIGN.—

We prospectively recruited 142 symptomatic and asymptomatic children/young adults into a sample comparison study performed in a single health care system. Each child provided self-collected saliva, and a trained health care provider collected a mid-turbinate nasal swab and nasopharyngeal (NP) swab. Specimens were assayed within 24 hours of collection by using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 on a single testing platform.

RESULTS.—

Concurrently collected saliva and mid-turbinate swabs had greater than 95% positive agreement with NP swabs when obtained within 10 days of symptom onset. Positive agreement of saliva and mid-turbinate samples collected from children with symptom onset >10 days prior, or without symptoms, was 82% compared to NP swab samples. Cycle threshold (Ct) values for mid-turbinate nasal samples more closely correlated with Ct values from NP samples than from saliva samples.

CONCLUSIONS.—

These findings suggest that all 3 sample types from children are useful for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing by RT-PCR, and that concordance is greatest when the child has had symptoms of COVID-19 within the past 10 days. This study provides scientific justification for using sample types other than the NP swab for SARS-CoV-2 testing in pediatric populations.

Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 viral-load curves in paired saliva and nasal swabs inform appropriate respiratory sampling site and analytical test sensitivity required for earliest viral detection

Early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is critical to reduce asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, curb the spread of variants by travelers, and maximize treatment efficacy. Low-sensitivity nasal-swab testing (antigen and some nucleic-acid-amplification tests) is commonly used for surveillance and symptomatic testing, but the ability of low-sensitivity nasal-swab tests to detect the earliest stages of infection has not been established. In this case-ascertained study, initially-SARS-CoV-2-negative household contacts of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 prospectively self-collected paired anterior-nares nasal-swab and saliva samples twice daily for viral-load quantification by high-sensitivity RT-qPCR and digital-RT-PCR assays. We captured viral-load profiles from the incidence of infection for seven individuals and compared diagnostic sensitivities between respiratory sites. Among unvaccinated persons, high-sensitivity saliva testing detected infection up to 4.5 days before viral loads in nasal swabs reached the limit of detection of low-sensitivity nasal-swab tests. For most participants, nasal swabs reached higher peak viral loads than saliva, but were undetectable or at lower loads during the first few days of infection. High-sensitivity saliva testing was most reliable for earliest detection. Our study illustrates the value of acquiring early (within hours after a negative high-sensitivity test) viral-load profiles to guide the appropriate analytical sensitivity and respiratory site for detecting earliest infections. Such data are challenging to acquire but critical to design optimal testing strategies in the current pandemic and will be required for responding to future viral pandemics. As new variants and viruses emerge, up-to-date data on viral kinetics are necessary to adjust testing strategies for reliable early detection of infections.

Development of an alternative saliva test for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 using TRIzol: Adapting to countries with lower incomes looking for a large-scale detection program

The use of saliva for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 has shown to be a good alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), since it permits self-collection, avoids the exposure of healthy persons to infected patients, reduces waiting times, eliminates the need of personal protective equipment and is non-invasive. Yet current saliva testing is still expensive due to the need of specialized tubes containing buffers to stabilize the RNA of SARS-CoV-2 and inactivate the virus. These tubes are expensive and not always accessible in sufficient quantities. We now developed an alternative saliva testing method, using TRIzol for extraction, viral inactivation, and storage of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, combined with RT-qPCR, which was comparable in its performance to NPS. Paired saliva samples and NPS were taken from 15 asymptomatic healthcare workers and one patient with SARS-CoV-2. Further 13 patients with SARS-CoV-2 were only saliva-tested. All the tests were performed according to CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel. Saliva (4 mL) was taken in sterile 50 mL tubes, 1.5 mL TRIzol were added and mixed. Our results show that 5 μL of saliva RNA extracted with TRIzol allow for an adequate detection of the virus in patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 and was equally sensitive to NPS in TRIzol. We conclude that saliva testing using TRIzol is a recommendable method for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 since it has several advantages over currently used saliva tests: it can be done with normal sterile tubes, does not need cold-chain handling, is stable at room temperature, is non-invasive and less costly, making it more accessible for low-income countries. Cheaper saliva testing using TRIzol is especially relevant for low-income countries to optimize diagnosis and help define quarantine durations for families, healthcare workers, schools, and other public workplaces, thus decreasing infections and mortality caused by SARS-CoV-2.

Pediatric Kawasaki Disease Trends Prior to and During COVID-19 Outbreak in Singapore

Kawasaki disease (KD, typical/atypical/partial) admissions (n = 644) were surveyed from 2017 to 2020 and compared to urinary tract infection (UTI) admissions and COVID-19 in 2020. KD admissions decreased by 27% and median KD age decreased in 2020, whereas UTI admissions remained steady. KD admissions showed a seasonality with a peak in April and nadir in February-March. All KD/KD-related pediatric intensive care unit cases tested negative for COVID-19, and no multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children was found.

Adding saliva testing to oropharyngeal and deep nasal swab testing increases PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 in primary care and children

Objective

To compare the concordance and acceptability of saliva testing with standard‐of‐care oropharyngeal and bilateral deep nasal swab testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) in children and in general practice.

Design

Prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study.

Setting

Royal Children’s Hospital, and two general practices (cohealth, West Melbourne; Cirqit Health, Altona North) in Melbourne, July–October 2020.

Participants

1050 people who provided paired saliva and oropharyngeal‐nasal swabs for SARS‐CoV‐2 testing.

Main outcome measures

Numbers of cases in which SARS‐CoV‐2 was detected in either specimen type by real‐time polymerase chain reaction; concordance of results for paired specimens; positive percent agreement (PPA) for virus detection, by specimen type.

Results

SARS‐CoV‐2 was detected in 54 of 1050 people with assessable specimens (5%), including 19 cases (35%) in which both specimens were positive. The overall PPA was 72% (95% CI, 58–84%) for saliva and 63% (95% CI, 49–76%) for oropharyngeal‐nasal swabs. For the 35 positive specimens from people aged 10 years or more, PPA was 86% (95% CI, 70–95%) for saliva and 63% (95% CI, 45–79%) for oropharyngeal‐nasal swabs. Adding saliva testing to standard‐of‐care oropharyngeal‐nasal swab testing increased overall case detection by 59% (95% CI, 29–95%). Providing saliva was preferred to an oropharyngeal‐nasal swab by most participants (75%), including 141 of 153 children under 10 years of age (92%).

Conclusion

In children over 10 years of age and adults, saliva testing alone may be suitable for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection, while for children under 10, saliva testing may be suitable as an adjunct to oropharyngeal‐nasal swab testing for increasing case detection.

Performance of Saliva, Oropharyngeal Swabs, and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the highest-yield sample for diagnostic testing for respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The need to increase capacity for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a variety of settings, combined with shortages of sample collection supplies, have motivated a search for alternative sample types with high sensitivity. We systematically reviewed the literature to understand the performance of alternative sample types compared to NP swabs. We systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv (last retrieval 1 October 2020) for comparative studies of alternative specimen types (saliva, oropharyngeal [OP], and nasal [NS] swabs) versus NP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). A logistic-normal random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate % positive alternative-specimen, % positive NP, and % dual positives overall and in subgroups. The QUADAS 2 tool was used to assess bias. From 1,253 unique citations, we identified 25 saliva, 11 NS, 6 OP, and 4 OP/NS studies meeting inclusion criteria. Three specimen types captured lower % positives (NS [82%, 95% CI: 73 to 90%], OP [84%, 95% CI: 57 to 100%], and saliva [88%, 95% CI: 81 to 93%]) than NP swabs, while combined OP/NS matched NP performance (97%, 95% CI: 90 to 100%). Absence of RNA extraction (saliva) and utilization of a more sensitive NAAT (NS) substantially decreased alternative-specimen yield of positive samples. NP swabs remain the gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, although alternative specimens are promising. Much remains unknown about the impact of variations in specimen collection, processing protocols, and population (pediatric versus adult, late versus early in disease course), such that head-to head studies of sampling strategies are urgently needed.

Performance of Saliva, Oropharyngeal Swabs, and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the highest-yield sample for diagnostic testing for respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The need to increase capacity for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a variety of settings, combined with shortages of sample collection supplies, have motivated a search for alternative sample types with high sensitivity. We systematically reviewed the literature to understand the performance of alternative sample types compared to NP swabs. We systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv (last retrieval 1 October 2020) for comparative studies of alternative specimen types (saliva, oropharyngeal [OP], and nasal [NS] swabs) versus NP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). A logistic-normal random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate % positive alternative-specimen, % positive NP, and % dual positives overall and in subgroups. The QUADAS 2 tool was used to assess bias. From 1,253 unique citations, we identified 25 saliva, 11 NS, 6 OP, and 4 OP/NS studies meeting inclusion criteria. Three specimen types captured lower % positives (NS [82%, 95% CI: 73 to 90%], OP [84%, 95% CI: 57 to 100%], and saliva [88%, 95% CI: 81 to 93%]) than NP swabs, while combined OP/NS matched NP performance (97%, 95% CI: 90 to 100%). Absence of RNA extraction (saliva) and utilization of a more sensitive NAAT (NS) substantially decreased alternative-specimen yield of positive samples. NP swabs remain the gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, although alternative specimens are promising. Much remains unknown about the impact of variations in specimen collection, processing protocols, and population (pediatric versus adult, late versus early in disease course), such that head-to head studies of sampling strategies are urgently needed.

Saliva viral load better correlates with clinical and immunological profiles in children with coronavirus disease 2019

Background

Pediatric COVID-19 studies exploring the relationships between NPS and saliva viral loads, clinical and immunological profiles are lacking.

Methods

Demographics, immunological profiles, nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), and saliva samples collected on admission, and hospital length of stay (LOS) were assessed in children below 18 years with COVID-19.

Findings

91 patients were included between March and August 20 20. NPS and saliva viral loads were correlated (r = 0.315, p = 0.01). Symptomatic patients had significantly higher NPS and saliva viral loads than asymptomatic patients. Serial NPS and saliva viral load measurements showed that the log₁₀ NPS (r = −0.532, p < 0.001) and saliva (r = −0.417, p < 0.001) viral loads for all patients were inversely correlated with the days from symptom onset with statistical significance. Patients with cough, sputum, and headache had significantly higher saliva, but not NPS, viral loads. Higher saliva, but not NPS, viral loads were associated with total lymphopenia, CD3 and CD4 lymphopenia (all p < 0.05), and were inversely correlated with total lymphocyte (r = −0.43), CD3 (r = −0.55), CD4 (r = −0.60), CD8 (r = −0.41), B (r = −0.482), and NK (r = −0.416) lymphocyte counts (all p < 0.05).

Interpretation

Saliva viral loads on admission in children correlated better with clinical and immunological profiles than NPS.

Saliva for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 in school-age children

Objectives

The high diagnostic accuracy indices for saliva severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) reported in adults has not been demonstrated in children, and adequately powered studies focused on the paediatric population are lacking. This study was carried out to determine the diagnostic accuracy of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in ambulatory children.

Methods

During 1 to 23 October 2020, we recruited a population-based sample of children presenting for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) screening in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Each child provided paired nasopharyngeal (NP) swab and saliva for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR N, E and RdRp gene detection.

Results

Paired NP swab and saliva samples were obtained from 476 children with mean ± standard deviation age of 10.8 ± 3.9 years, and 58.2% were male (277/476). Nine participants were sampled twice, so 485 pairs of NP swab/saliva were tested. Virus detection in at least one specimen type was reported in 17.9% (87/485), with similar detection in NP swab (16.7%, 81/485) and saliva (15.9%, 77/485). Sensitivity and specificity of saliva RT-PCR was 87.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78.5–93.9) and 98.5% (95% CI 96.8–99.5). The positive and negative predictive values were 92.2% (95% CI 84.2–96.3) and 97.6% (95% CI 95.7–98.6), with a kappa coefficient of 0.879 (95% CI 0.821–0.937). Concordance of findings between NP swab and saliva did not differ by age (p 0.67) or gender (p 0.29). Cycle threshold (Ct) values were significantly higher in NP swab/saliva pairs with discordant findings compared to those with both specimens positive.

Conclusions

In light of these findings, we recommend saliva as a diagnostic specimen for COVID-19 screening in children.

Saliva Is a Promising Alternative Specimen for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Children and Adults

Testing efforts for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been burdened by the scarcity of testing materials and personal protective equipment for health care workers. The simple and painless process of saliva collection allows for widespread testing, but enthusiasm is hampered by variable performance compared to that of nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples.

Testing efforts for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been burdened by the scarcity of testing materials and personal protective equipment for health care workers. The simple and painless process of saliva collection allows for widespread testing, but enthusiasm is hampered by variable performance compared to that of nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. We prospectively collected paired NPS and saliva samples from a total of 300 unique adult and pediatric patients. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 32.2% (97/300) of the individuals using the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo kit (Thermo Fisher). Performance of saliva and NPS was compared against the total number of positives regardless of specimen type. The overall concordances for saliva and NPS were 91.0% (273/300) and 94.7% (284/300), respectively. The values for positive percent agreement (PPA) for saliva and NPS were 81.4% (79/97) and 89.7% (87/97), respectively. Saliva yielded detection of 10 positive cases that were negative by NPS. For symptomatic and asymptomatic pediatric patients not previously diagnosed with COVID-19, the performances of saliva and NPS were comparable (PPA, 82.4% versus 85.3%). The overall values for PPA for adults were 83.3% and 90.7% for saliva and NPS, respectively, with saliva yielding detection of 4 fewer cases than NPS. However, saliva performance for symptomatic adults was identical to NPS performance (PPA of 93.8%). With lower cost and self-collection capabilities, saliva can be an appropriate sample choice alternative to NPS for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults.

Validation of self-collected buccal swab and saliva as a diagnostic tool for COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Effective management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) requires large-scale testing to identify and isolate infectious carriers. Self-administered buccal swab and saliva collection are convenient, painless, and safe alternatives to the current healthcare worker (HCW)-collected nasopharyngeal swab (NPS).

METHODS

A cross-sectional single-centre study was conducted on 42 participants who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via an NPS within the past 7 days. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was performed and cycle threshold (Ct) values were obtained for each test. The positive percent agreement (PPA), negative percent agreement (NPA), and overall agreement (OA) were calculated for the saliva samples and buccal swabs, and compared with NPS.

RESULTS

Among the 42 participants, 73.8% (31/42) tested positive by any one of the three tests. With reference to NPS, the saliva test had PPA 66.7%, NPA 91.7%, and OA 69.0%; the buccal swab had PPA 56.7%, NPA 100%, and OA 73.8%.

CONCLUSION

Self-collected saliva tests and buccal swabs showed only moderate agreement with HCW-collected NPS. Primary screening for SARS-CoV-2 may be performed with a saliva test or buccal swab, with a negative test warranting a confirmatory NPS to avoid false-negatives, minimize discomfort, and reduce the risk of spread to the community and HCWs.

Saliva as a possible tool for the SARS-CoV-2 detection: A review

BACKGROUND

Salivary tests for the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) diagnosis have been suggested as alternative methods for the nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal tests.

METHOD

Two reviewers independently performed a search in the following electronic databases: PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase and Scopus to identify cross-sectional and cohort studies that used saliva samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The search strategy was: ("saliva") and ("SARS-CoV-2" or "coronavirus" or "COVID-1").

RESULTS

A total of 363 studies were identified and 39 were selected for review. Salivary samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection was as consistent and sensitive as the nasopharyngeal swabs in most studies, having been effective in detecting asymptomatic infections previously tested negative in nasopharyngeal samples. Viral nucleic acids found in saliva obtained from the duct of the salivary gland may indicate infection in that gland. Live viruses could be detected in saliva by viral culture.

CONCLUSIONS

Salivary samples show great potential in SARS-CoV-2 detection and may be recommended as a simple and non-invasive alternative.

Saliva is a promising alternative specimen for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults

Testing efforts for SARS-CoV-2 have been burdened by the scarcity of testing materials and personal protective equipment for healthcare workers. The simple and painless process of saliva collection allows for widespread testing, but enthusiasm is hampered by variable performance compared to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. We prospectively collected paired NPS and saliva samples from a total of 300 unique adult and pediatric patients. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 32.2% (97/300) of the individuals using the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit (Thermo Fisher). Performance of saliva and NPS were compared against the total number of positives regardless of specimen type. The overall concordance for saliva and NPS was 91.0% (273/300) and 94.7% (284/300), respectively. The positive percent agreement (PPA) for saliva and NPS was 81.4% (79/97) and 89.7% (87/97), respectively. Saliva detected 10 positive cases that were negative by NPS. In symptomatic and asymptomatic pediatric patients not previously diagnosed with COVID-19, the performances of saliva and NPS were comparable (PPA: 82.4% vs 85.3%). The overall PPA for adults were 83.3% and 90.7% for saliva and NPS, respectively, with saliva detecting 4 cases less than NPS. However, saliva performance in symptomatic adults was identical to NPS (PPA of 93.8%). With lower cost and self-collection capabilities, saliva can be an appropriate alternative sample choice to NPS for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults.

Saliva is an acceptable alternative specimen compared to nasopharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Specifically, saliva demonstrated comparable performance to nasopharyngeal swabs in symptomatic and asymptomatic pediatric patients and in symptomatic adults.