Concordance between PCR-based extraction-free saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing

Saliva as a Biological Fluid in SARS-CoV-2 Detection

BACKGROUND

The polymerase chain reaction of upper respiratory tract swab samples was established as the gold standard procedure for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID pandemic. However, saliva collection has attracted attention as an alternative diagnostic collection method. The goal of this study was to compare the use of saliva and nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

Ninety-nine paired samples were evaluated for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by saliva and swab for a qualitative diagnosis and quantitative comparison of viral particles. Furthermore, the detection limits for each sample collection technique were determined. The cycle threshold (CT) values of the saliva samples, the vaccination status, and the financial costs associated with each collection technique were compared.

RESULTS

The results showed qualitative equivalence in diagnosis (96.96%) comparing saliva and swab collection, although there was low quantitative agreement. Furthermore, the detection limit test demonstrated equivalence for both collection methods. We did not observe a statistically significant association between CT values and vaccination status, indicating that the vaccine had no influence on viral load at diagnosis. Finally, we observed that the use of saliva incurs lower financial costs and requires less use of plastic materials, making it more sustainable.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the adoption of saliva collection as a feasible and sustainable alternative to the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Evaluating and optimizing Acid-pH and Direct Lysis RNA extraction for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in whole saliva

COVID-19 has been a global public health and economic challenge. Screening for the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been a key part of disease mitigation while the world continues to move forward, and lessons learned will benefit disease detection beyond COVID-19. Saliva specimen collection offers a less invasive, time- and cost-effective alternative to standard nasopharyngeal swabs. We optimized two different methods of saliva sample processing for RT-qPCR testing. Two methods were optimized to provide two cost-efficient ways to do testing for a minimum of four samples by pooling in a 2.0 mL tube and decrease the need for more highly trained personnel. Acid-pH-based RNA extraction method can be done without the need for expensive kits. Direct Lysis is a quick one-step reaction that can be applied quickly. Our optimized Acid-pH and Direct Lysis protocols are reliable and reproducible, detecting the beta-2 microglobulin (B2M) mRNA in saliva as an internal control from 97 to 96.7% of samples, respectively. The cycle threshold (Ct) values for B2M were significantly higher in the Direct Lysis protocol than in the Acid-pH protocol. The limit of detection for N1 gene was higher in Direct Lysis at ≤ 5 copies/μL than Acid-pH. Saliva samples collected over the course of several days from two COVID-positive individuals demonstrated Ct values for N1 that were consistently higher from Direct Lysis compared to Acid-pH. Collectively, this work supports that each of these techniques can be used to screen for SARS-CoV-2 in saliva for a cost-effective screening platform.

SalivaDirect: an alternative to a conventional RNA extraction protocol for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a clinical setting

IMPORTANCE

Affordable and accessible tests for COVID-19 allow for timely disease treatment and pandemic management. SalivaDirect is a faster and easier method to implement than NPS sampling. Patients can self-collect saliva samples at home or in other non-clinical settings without the help of a healthcare professional. Sample processing in SalivaDirect is less complex and more adaptable than in conventional nucleic acid extraction methods. We found that SalivaDirect has good diagnostic performance and is ideal for large-scale testing in settings where supplies may be limited or trained healthcare professionals are unavailable.

Flexible upscaling of laboratory PCR testing capacity at the Robert Koch Institute during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, laboratories worldwide have been facing an unprecedented increase in demand for PCR testing because of the high importance of diagnostics for prevention and control of virus spread. Moreover, testing demand has been varying considerably over time, depending on the epidemiological situation, rendering efficient resource allocation difficult. Here, we present a scalable workflow which we implemented in our laboratory to increase PCR testing capacity while maintaining high flexibility regarding the number of samples to be processed.

METHODS

We compared the performance of five automated extraction instruments, using dilutions of SARS-CoV-2 cell culture supernatant as well as clinical samples. To increase PCR throughput, we combined the two duplex PCR reactions of our previously published SARS-CoV-2 PCR assay into one quadruplex reaction and compared their limit of detection as well as their performance on the detection of low viral loads in clinical samples. Furthermore, we developed a sample pooling protocol with either two or four samples per pool, combined with a specifically adapted SARS-CoV-2 quadruplex PCR assay, and compared the diagnostic sensitivity of pooled testing and individual testing.

RESULTS

All tested automated extraction instruments yielded comparable results regarding the subsequent sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection by PCR. While the limit of detection of the quadruplex SARS-CoV-2 PCR assay (E-Gene assay: 28.7 genome equivalents (ge)/reaction, orf1ab assay: 32.0 ge/reaction) was slightly higher than that of our previously published duplex PCR assays (E-Gene assay: 9.8 ge/reaction, orf1ab assay: 6.6 ge/reaction), the rate of correctly identified positive patient samples was comparable for both assays. Sample pooling with optimized downstream quadruplex PCR showed no loss in diagnostic sensitivity compared to individual testing.

CONCLUSION

Specific adaptation of PCR assays can help overcome the potential loss of sensitivity due to higher levels of PCR multiplexing or sample dilution in pooled testing. Combining these adapted PCR assays with different sample processing strategies provides a simple and highly adjustable workflow for resource-efficient SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. The presented principles can easily be adopted in a variety of laboratory settings as well as be adapted to pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2, making it feasible for any laboratory that conducts PCR diagnostics.

Saliva as an alternative specimen to nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 diagnosis: Review

Almost 2 years ago, the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was discovered to be the causative agent of the disease COVID-19. Subsequently, SARS-CoV-2 has spread across the world infecting millions of people, resulting in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The current 'gold standard' for COVID-19 diagnosis involves obtaining a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) from the patient and testing for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the specimen using real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR). However, obtaining a NPS specimen is an uncomfortable and invasive procedure for the patient and is limited in its applicability to mass testing. Interest in saliva as an alternative diagnostic specimen is of increasing global research interest due to its malleability to mass testing, greater patient acceptability and overall ease of specimen collection. However, the current literature surrounding the sensitivity of saliva compared to NPS is conflicting. The aim of this review was to analyse the recent literature to assess the viability of saliva in COVID-19 diagnosis. We hypothesize that the discrepancies in the current literature are likely due to the variations in the saliva collection and processing protocols used between studies. The universal adaptation of an optimised protocol could alleviate these discrepancies and see saliva specimens be as sensitive, if not more, than NPS for COVID-19 diagnosis. Whilst saliva specimens are more complimentary to mass-testing, with the possibility of samples being collected from home, the RT-qPCR diagnostic process remains to be the rate-limiting step and therefore interest in salivary rapid antigen tests, which negate the wait-times of RT-qPCR with results available within 15-30 min, may be an answer to this.

Saliva as a sample type for SARS-CoV-2 detection: implementation successes and opportunities around the globe

INTRODUCTION

Symptomatic testing and asymptomatic screening for SARS-CoV-2 continue to be essential tools for mitigating virus transmission. Though COVID-19 diagnostics initially defaulted to oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal sampling, the worldwide urgency to expand testing efforts spurred innovative approaches and increased diversity of detection methods. Strengthening innovation and facilitating widespread testing remains critical for global health, especially as additional variants emerge and other mitigation strategies are recalibrated.

AREAS COVERED

A growing body of evidence reflects the need to expand testing efforts and further investigate the efficiency, sensitivity, and acceptability of saliva samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Countries have made pandemic response decisions based on resources, costs, procedures, and regional acceptability - the adoption and integration of saliva-based testing among them. Saliva has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity while being less invasive relative to nasopharyngeal swabs, securing saliva's position as a more acceptable sample type.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the accessibility and utility of saliva sampling, global implementation remains low compared to swab-based approaches. In some cases, countries have validated saliva-based methods but face challenges with testing implementation or expansion. Here, we review the localities that have demonstrated success with saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 testing approaches and can serve as models for transforming concepts into globally-implemented best practices.

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.

Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Viral-Load Curves in Paired Saliva Samples 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 presymptomatic transmission, curb the spread of variants, and maximize treatment efficacy. Low-analytical-sensitivity nasal-swab testing is commonly used for surveillance and symptomatic testing, but the ability of these tests to detect the earliest stages of infection has not been established. In this study, conducted between September 2020 and June 2021 in the greater Los Angeles County, California, area, 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 reverse-transcription quantitative PCR (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, testing saliva with a high-analytical-sensitivity assay detected infection up to 4.5 days before viral loads in nasal swabs reached concentrations detectable by low-analytical-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-analytical-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 designing optimal testing strategies with emerging variants in the current pandemic and to respond to future viral pandemics.

Concordance between PCR-based extraction-free saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing

Introduction: Saliva represents a less invasive alternative to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection. SalivaDirect is a nucleic acid extraction-free method for detecting SARS-CoV2 in saliva specimens. Studies evaluating the concordance of gold standard NPS and newly developed SalivaDirect protocols are limited. The aim of our study was to to assess SalivaDirect as an alternative method for COVID-19 testing. Methods: Matching NPS and saliva samples were analysed from a cohort of symptomatic (n=127) and asymptomatic (n=181) participants recruited from hospital and university settings, respectively. RNA was extracted from NPS while saliva samples were subjected to the SalivaDirect protocol before RT-qPCR analysis. The presence of SARS-Cov-2 was assessed using RdRP and N1 gene targets in NPS and saliva, respectively. Results: Overall we observed 94.3% sensitivity (95% CI 87.2-97.5%), and 95.9% specificity (95% CI 92.4-97.8%) in saliva when compared to matching NPS samples. Analysis of concordance demonstrated 95.5% accuracy overall for the saliva test relative to NPS, and a very high level of agreement (κ coefficient = 0.889, 95% CI 0.833-0.946) between the two sets of specimens. Fourteen of 308 samples were discordant, all from symptomatic patients. Ct values were >30 in 13/14 and >35 in 6/14 samples. No significant difference was found in the Ct values of matching NPS and saliva sample ( p=0.860). A highly significant correlation (r = 0.475, p<0.0001) was also found between the Ct values of the concordant positive saliva and NPS specimens. Conclusions: Use of saliva processed according to the SalivaDirect protocol represents a valid method to detect SARS-CoV-2. Accurate and less invasive saliva screening is an attractive alternative to current testing methods based on NPS and would afford greater capacity to test asymptomatic populations especially in the context of frequent testing.