Salivary detection of COVID-19: clinical performance of oral sponge sampling for SARS-CoV-2 testing

Predicting the hub interactome of COVID-19 and oral squamous cell carcinoma: uncovering ALDH-mediated Wnt/β-catenin pathway activation via salivary inflammatory proteins

Understanding shared pathways and mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of diseases like oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and COVID-19 could lead to the development of novel therapeutic strategies and diagnostic biomarkers. This study aims to predict the interactome of OSCC and COVID-19 based on salivary inflammatory proteins. Datasets for OSCC and COVID-19 were obtained from https://www.salivaryproteome.org/differential-expression and selected for differential gene expression analysis. Differential gene expression analysis was performed using log transformation and a fold change of two. Hub proteins were identified using Cytoscape and Cytohubba, and machine learning algorithms including naïve Bayes, neural networks, gradient boosting, and random forest were used to predict hub genes. Top hub genes identified included ALDH1A1, MT-CO2, SERPINC1, FGB, and TF. The random forest model achieved the highest accuracy (93%) and class accuracy (84%). The naive Bayes model had lower accuracy (63%) and class accuracy (66%), while the neural network model showed 55% accuracy and class accuracy, possibly due to data pre-processing issues. The gradient boosting model outperformed all models with an accuracy of 95% and class accuracy of 95%. Salivary proteomic interactome analysis revealed novel hub proteins as potential common biomarkers.

The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection

BACKGROUND

Sample collection is a key driver of accuracy in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Viral load may vary at different anatomical sampling sites and accuracy may be compromised by difficulties obtaining specimens and the expertise of the person taking the sample. It is important to optimise sampling accuracy within cost, safety and accessibility constraints.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the sensitivity of different sampling collection sites and methods for the detection of current SARS-CoV-2 infection with any molecular or antigen-based test.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 22 February 2022. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of symptomatic or asymptomatic people with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing testing. We included studies of any design that compared results from different sample types (anatomical location, operator, collection device) collected from the same participant within a 24-hour period.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Within a sample pair, we defined a reference sample and an index sample collected from the same participant within the same clinical encounter (within 24 hours). Where the sample comparison was different anatomical sites, the reference standard was defined as a nasopharyngeal or combined naso/oropharyngeal sample collected into the same sample container and the index sample as the alternative anatomical site. Where the sample comparison was concerned with differences in the sample collection method from the same site, we defined the reference sample as that closest to standard practice for that sample type. Where the sample pair comparison was concerned with differences in personnel collecting the sample, the more skilled or experienced operator was considered the reference sample. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C checklists, tailored to this review. We present estimates of the difference in the sensitivity (reference sample (%) minus index sample sensitivity (%)) in a pair and as an average across studies for each index sampling method using forest plots and tables. We examined heterogeneity between studies according to population (age, symptom status) and index sample (time post-symptom onset, operator expertise, use of transport medium) characteristics.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 106 studies reporting 154 evaluations and 60,523 sample pair comparisons, of which 11,045 had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ninety evaluations were of saliva samples, 37 nasal, seven oropharyngeal, six gargle, six oral and four combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples. Four evaluations were of the effect of operator expertise on the accuracy of three different sample types. The majority of included evaluations (146) used molecular tests, of which 140 used RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction). Eight evaluations were of nasal samples used with Ag-RDTs (rapid antigen tests). The majority of studies were conducted in Europe (35/106, 33%) or the USA (27%) and conducted in dedicated COVID-19 testing clinics or in ambulatory hospital settings (53%). Targeted screening or contact tracing accounted for only 4% of evaluations. Where reported, the majority of evaluations were of adults (91/154, 59%), 28 (18%) were in mixed populations with only seven (4%) in children. The median prevalence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was 23% (interquartile (IQR) 13%-40%). Risk of bias and applicability assessment were hampered by poor reporting in 77% and 65% of included studies, respectively. Risk of bias was low across all domains in only 3% of evaluations due to inappropriate inclusion or exclusion criteria, unclear recruitment, lack of blinding, nonrandomised sampling order or differences in testing kit within a sample pair. Sixty-eight percent of evaluation cohorts were judged as being at high or unclear applicability concern either due to inflation of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in study populations by selectively including individuals with confirmed PCR-positive samples or because there was insufficient detail to allow replication of sample collection. When used with RT-PCR • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between gargle and nasopharyngeal samples (on average -1 percentage points, 95% CI -5 to +2, based on 6 evaluations, 2138 sample pairs, of which 389 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between saliva collection from the deep throat and nasopharyngeal samples (on average +10 percentage points, 95% CI -1 to +21, based on 2192 sample pairs, of which 730 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was evidence that saliva collection using spitting, drooling or salivating was on average -12 percentage points less sensitive (95% CI -16 to -8, based on 27,253 sample pairs, of which 4636 had SARS-CoV-2) compared to nasopharyngeal samples. We did not find any evidence of a difference in the sensitivity of saliva collected using spitting, drooling or salivating (sensitivity difference: range from -13 percentage points (spit) to -21 percentage points (salivate)). • Nasal samples (anterior and mid-turbinate collection combined) were, on average, 12 percentage points less sensitive compared to nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -17 to -7), based on 9291 sample pairs, of which 1485 had SARS-CoV-2. We did not find any evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples collected from the mid-turbinates (3942 sample pairs) or from the anterior nares (8272 sample pairs). • There was evidence that oropharyngeal samples were, on average, 17 percentage points less sensitive than nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -29 to -5), based on seven evaluations, 2522 sample pairs, of which 511 had SARS-CoV-2. A much smaller volume of evidence was available for combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples and oral samples. Age, symptom status and use of transport media do not appear to affect the sensitivity of saliva samples and nasal samples. When used with Ag-RDTs • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples (sensitivity, on average, 0 percentage points -0.2 to +0.2, based on 3688 sample pairs, of which 535 had SARS-CoV-2).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When used with RT-PCR, there is no evidence for a difference in sensitivity of self-collected gargle or deep-throat saliva samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples collected by healthcare workers when used with RT-PCR. Use of these alternative, self-collected sample types has the potential to reduce cost and discomfort and improve the safety of sampling by reducing risk of transmission from aerosol spread which occurs as a result of coughing and gagging during the nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal sample collection procedure. This may, in turn, improve access to and uptake of testing. Other types of saliva, nasal, oral and oropharyngeal samples are, on average, less sensitive compared to healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples, and it is unlikely that sensitivities of this magnitude would be acceptable for confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection with RT-PCR. When used with Ag-RDTs, there is no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples and healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The implications of this for self-testing are unclear as evaluations did not report whether nasal samples were self-collected or collected by healthcare workers. Further research is needed in asymptomatic individuals, children and in Ag-RDTs, and to investigate the effect of operator expertise on accuracy. Quality assessment of the evidence base underpinning these conclusions was restricted by poor reporting. There is a need for further high-quality studies, adhering to reporting standards for test accuracy studies.

Evaluation of saliva and nasopharyngeal swab sampling for genomic detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children accessing a pediatric emergency department during the second pandemic wave

SARS-CoV-2 infection is mainly detected by multiplex real-time RT-PCR from upper respiratory specimens, which is considered the gold-standard technique for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis. A nasopharyngeal (NP) swab represents the clinical sample of choice, but NP swabbing can be uncomfortable to the patients, especially for pediatric-age participants, requires trained healthcare personnel, and may generate an aerosol, increasing the intrinsic exposure risk of healthcare workers. The objective of this study was to compare paired NP and saliva samples (SS) collected from pediatric patients to evaluate whether the saliva collection procedure may be considered a valuable alternative to the classical NP swab (NPS) sampling in children. In this study, we describe a SARS-CoV-2 multiplex real-time RT-PCR protocol for SS, comparing the results with the paired NPS specimens from 256 pediatric patients (mean age 4.24 ± 4.40 years) admitted to the hospital emergency room of Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata (AOUI), Verona, and randomly enrolled between September 2020 and December 2020. The saliva sampling demonstrated consistent results when compared to NPS use. The SARS-CoV-2 genome was detected in 16 out of 256 (6.25%) NP samples, among which 13 (5.07%) were positive even when paired SS were analyzed. Moreover, SARS-CoV-2-negative NPS and SS were consistent, and the overall concordances between NPS and SS were detected in 253 out of 256 samples (98.83%). Our results suggest that saliva samples may be considered a valuable alternative to NPS for SARS-CoV-2 direct diagnosis with multiplex real-time RT-PCR in pediatric patients.

An evaluation index system for regional mobile SARS-CoV-2 virus nucleic acid testing capacity in China: a modified Delphi consensus study

Background

Large-scale detection has great potential to bring benefits for containing the COVID-19 epidemic and supporting the government in reopening economic activities. Evaluating the true regional mobile severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus nucleic acid testing capacity is essential to improve the overall fighting performance against this epidemic and maintain economic development. However, such a tool is not available in this issue. We aimed to establish an evaluation index system for assessing the regional mobile SARS-CoV-2 virus nucleic acid testing capacity and provide suggestions for improving the capacity level.

Methods

The initial version of the evaluation index system was identified based on massive literature and expert interviews. The Delphi method questionnaire was designed and 30 experts were consulted in two rounds of questionnaire to select and revise indexes at all three levels. The Analytic Hierarchy Process method was used to calculate the weight of indexes at all three levels.

Results

The evaluation index system for assessing the regional mobile SARS-CoV-2 virus nucleic acid testing capacity, including 5 first-level indexes, 17 second-level indexes, and 90 third-level indexes. The response rates of questionnaires delivered in the two rounds of consultation were 100 and 96.7%. Furthermore, the authority coefficient of 30 experts was 0.71. Kendall’s coordination coefficient differences were statistically significant (P < 0.001). The weighted values of capacity indexes were established at all levels according to the consistency test, demonstrating that ‘Personnel team construction’ (0.2046) came first amongst the five first-level indexes, followed by ‘Laboratory performance building and maintenance’ (0.2023), ‘Emergency response guarantee’ (0.1989), ‘Information management system for nucleic acid testing resources’ (0.1982) and ‘Regional mobile nucleic acid testing emergency response system construction’ (0.1959).

Conclusion

The evaluation system for assessing the regional mobile SARS-CoV-2 virus nucleic acid testing capacity puts forward a specific, objective, and quantifiable evaluation criterion. The evaluation system can act as a tool for diversified subjects to find the weak links and loopholes. It also provides a measurable basis for authorities to improve nucleic acid testing capabilities.

Setting-Up a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Genome Assessment by Next-Generation Sequencing in an Academic Hospital Center (LPCE, Louis Pasteur Hospital, Nice, France)

Introduction: Aside from the reverse transcription-PCR tests for the diagnosis of the COVID-19 in routine clinical care and population-scale screening, there is an urgent need to increase the number and the efficiency for full viral genome sequencing to detect the variants of SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 variants assessment should be easily, rapidly, and routinely available in any academic hospital.

Materials and Methods: SARS-CoV-2 full genome sequencing was performed retrospectively in a single laboratory (LPCE, Louis Pasteur Hospital, Nice, France) in 103 SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals. An automated workflow used the Ion Ampliseq SARS-CoV-2 panel on the Genexus Sequencer. The analyses were made from nasopharyngeal swab (NSP) (n = 64) and/or saliva (n = 39) samples. All samples were collected in the metropolitan area of the Nice city (France) from September 2020 to March 2021.

Results: The mean turnaround time between RNA extraction and result reports was 30 h for each run of 15 samples. A strong correlation was noted for the results obtained between NSP and saliva paired samples, regardless of low viral load and high (>28) Ct values. After repeated sequencing runs, complete failure of obtaining a valid sequencing result was observed in 4% of samples. Besides the European strain (B.1.160), various variants were identified, including one variant of concern (B.1.1.7), and different variants under monitoring.

Discussion: Our data highlight the current feasibility of developing the SARS-CoV-2 next-generation sequencing approach in a single hospital center. Moreover, these data showed that using the Ion Ampliseq SARS-CoV-2 Assay, the SARS-CoV-2 genome sequencing is rapid and efficient not only in NSP but also in saliva samples with a low viral load. The advantages and limitations of this setup are discussed.

Evaluation of Sample Pooling for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Nasopharyngeal Swab and Saliva Samples with the Idylla SARS-CoV-2 Test

Due to increased demand for testing, as well as restricted supply chain resources, testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues to face many hurdles. Pooling several samples has been proposed as an alternative approach to address these issues. We investigated the feasibility of pooling nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) or saliva samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing with a commercial assay (Idylla SARS-CoV-2 test; Biocartis). We evaluated the 10-pool and 20-pool approaches for 149 subjects, with 30 positive samples and 119 negative samples. The 10-pool approach had sensitivity of 78.95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.43% to 93.95%) and specificity of 100% (95% CI, 71.51% to 100%), whereas the 20-pool approach had sensitivity of 55.56% (95% CI, 21.20% to 86.30%) and specificity of 100% (95% CI, 25% to 100%). No significant difference was observed between the results obtained with pooled NPS and saliva samples. Given the rapidity, full automation, and practical advantages of the Idylla SARS-CoV-2 assay, pooling of 10 samples has the potential to significantly increase testing capacity for both NPS and saliva samples, with good sensitivity.

IMPORTANCE To control outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to avoid reagent shortages, testing strategies must be adapted and maintained for the foreseeable future. We analyzed the feasibility of pooling NPS and saliva samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing with the Idylla SARS-CoV-2 test, and we found that sensitivity was dependent on the pool size. The SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity with both NPS and saliva samples could be significantly expanded by pooling 10 samples; however, pooling 20 samples resulted in lower sensitivity.