RT-qPCR assays based on saliva rather than on nasopharyngeal swabs are possible but should be interpreted with caution: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis

Performance of saliva compared with nasopharyngeal swab for diagnosis of COVID-19 by NAAT in cross-sectional studies: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is the preferred method to diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Saliva has been suggested as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), but previous systematic reviews were limited by the number and types of studies available. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the diagnostic performance of saliva compared with NPS for COVID-19. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases up to 24 April 2021 for studies that directly compared paired NPS and saliva specimens taken at the time of diagnosis. Meta-analysis was performed using an exact binomial rendition of the bivariate mixed-effects regression model. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Of 2683 records, we included 23 studies with 25 cohorts, comprising 11,582 paired specimens. A wide variety of NAAT assays and collection methods were used. Meta-analysis gave a pooled sensitivity of 87 % (95 % CI = 83-90 %) and specificity of 99 % (95 % CI = 98-99 %). Subgroup analyses showed the highest sensitivity when the suspected individual is tested in an outpatient setting and is symptomatic. Our results support the use of saliva NAAT as an alternative to NPS NAAT for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Effect of RNA quality to SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR detection from saliva

Saliva is an alternative sample material to nasopharyngeal swab in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. We investigated possible aspects to improve the reliability of SARS-CoV-2 detection from saliva. Saliva was collected from asymptomatic healthy subjects (n=133) and COVID-19 patients (n=9). SARS-CoV-2 detection was performed with quantitative reverse-transcriptase PCR (RT-qPCR) with two viral and one host target serving as an internal control. The use of internal control revealed that in the first RT-qPCR run 25-30 % of assays failed. The failure is associated with poor RNA quality. When the amount of RNA was cut down to half from the original amount, the performance of RT-qPCR was greatly enhanced (95 % of the assays succeeded). The quality of RNA was not affected by the use of different nucleic acid stabilizing buffers. Our study showed that saliva is suitable material for RT-qPCR based SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics, but the use of internal control is essential to distinguish the true negative samples from failed assays.

Molecular accuracy vs antigenic speed: SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies

The pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has hit every corner of the world faster than any infectious disease ever known. In this context, rapid and accurate testing of positive cases are essential to follow the test-trace-isolate strategy (TETRIS), which has proven to be a key approach to constrain viral spread. Here, we discuss how to interpret and combine molecular or/and antigen-based detection methods for SARS-CoV-2 as well as when they should be used. Their application can be cleverly designed as an algorithm to prevent viral dissemination according to distinct epidemiological contexts within surveillance programs.

Prospective Study of the Performance of Parent-Collected Nasal and Saliva Swab Samples, Compared with Nurse-Collected Swab Samples, for the Molecular Detection of Respiratory Microorganisms

Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are ubiquitous among children in the community. A prospective observational study was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance and quality of at-home parent-collected (PC) nasal and saliva swab samples, compared to nurse-collected (NC) swab samples, from children with RTI symptoms. Children with RTI symptoms were swabbed at home on the same day by a parent and a nurse. We compared the performance of PC swab samples as the test with NC swab samples as the reference for the detection of respiratory pathogen gene targets by reverse transcriptase PCR, with quality assessment using a human gene. PC and NC paired nasal and saliva swab samples were collected from 91 and 92 children, respectively. Performance and interrater agreement (Cohen's κ) of PC versus NC nasal swab samples for viruses combined showed sensitivity of 91.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.47 to 95.73%) and κ of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88), respectively; the respective values for bacteria combined were 91.4% (95% CI, 86.85 to 94.87%) and κ of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.80 to 0.89). In saliva samples, viral and bacterial sensitivities were lower at 69.0% (95% CI, 57.47 to 79.76%) and 78.1% (95% CI, 71.60 to 83.76%), as were κ values at 0.64 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.72) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.76), respectively. Quality assessment for human biological material (18S rRNA) indicated perfect interrater agreement. At-home PC nasal swab samples performed comparably to NC swab samples, whereas PC saliva swab samples lacked sensitivity for the detection of respiratory microbes. IMPORTANCE RTIs are ubiquitous among children. Diagnosis involves a swab sample being taken by a health professional, which places a considerable burden on community health care systems, given the number of cases involved. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has seen an increase in the at-home self-collection of upper respiratory tract swab samples without the involvement of health professionals. It is advised that parents conduct or supervise swabbing of children. Surprisingly, few studies have addressed the quality of PC swab samples for subsequent identification of respiratory pathogens. We compared NC and PC nasal and saliva swab samples taken from the same child with RTI symptoms, for detection of respiratory pathogens. The PC nasal swab samples performed comparably to NC samples, whereas saliva swab samples lacked sensitivity for the detection of respiratory microbes. Collection of swab samples by parents would greatly reduce the burden on community nurses without reducing the effectiveness of diagnoses.

Diagnostic performance of different sampling approaches for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparative performance of different clinical sampling methods for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR among populations with suspected infection remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of different clinical specimen collection methods.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and Research Square from Jan 1, 2000, to Nov 16, 2020. We included original clinical studies that examined the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs and any additional respiratory specimens for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals presenting in ambulatory care. Studies without data on paired samples, or those that only examined different samples from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases were not useful for examining diagnostic performance of a test and were excluded. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, was examined using random effects models and double arcsine transformation.

FINDINGS

Of the 5577 studies identified in our search, 23 studies including 7973 participants with 16 762 respiratory samples were included. Respiratory specimens examined in these studies included 7973 nasopharyngeal swabs, 1622 nasal swabs, 6110 saliva samples, 338 throat swabs, and 719 pooled nasal and throat swabs. Using nasopharyngeal swabs as the gold standard, pooled nasal and throat swabs gave the highest sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 93-100), whereas lower sensitivities were achieved by saliva (85%, 75-93) and nasal swabs (86%, 77-93) and a much lower sensitivity by throat swabs (68%, 35-94). A comparably high positive predictive value was obtained by pooled nasal and throat (97%, 90-100) and nasal swabs (96%, 87-100) and a slightly lower positive predictive value by saliva (93%, 88-97). Throat swabs have the lowest positive predictive value of 75% (95% CI 45-96). Comparably high specificities (range 97-99%) and negative predictive value (range 95-99%) were observed among different clinical specimens. Comparison between health-care-worker collection and self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs showed comparable diagnostic performance. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the analysis of pooled nasal and throat swabs and throat swabs, whereas moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I² ≥30%) was observed in studies on saliva and nasal swabs.

INTERPRETATION

Our review suggests that, compared with the gold standard of nasopharyngeal swabs, pooled nasal and throat swabs offered the best diagnostic performance of the alternative sampling approaches for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ambulatory care. Saliva and nasal swabs gave comparable and very good diagnostic performance and are clinically acceptable alternative specimen collection methods. Throat swabs gave a much lower sensitivity and positive predictive value and should not be recommended. Self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs was not associated with any significant impairment of diagnostic accuracy. Our results also provide a useful reference framework for the proper interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 testing results using different clinical specimens.

FUNDING

Hong Kong Research Grants Council.

Endodontic procedures produce bacterial droplet contamination - but what about viruses?

Research question The study aims to investigate spread, distance and spatial distribution of aerosolised microorganisms generated through various endodontic procedures.

Study design A case-control study carried out at the University of Maryland, US in 2020. The study investigated the aerosolised microorganisms produced during three endodontic treatments: emergency pulpotomy, emergency pulpectomy and non-surgical root canal therapy (NSRCT), with 15 participants in each group (n = 45). Patients diagnosed with symptomatic apical periodontitis were included. The use of settle plates for passive air sampling was employed, in a 4 x 4 m room with closed doors. The number of colony-forming units (CFUs) and composition of bacterial species were analysed. Variables within the study included: distance of plate to patient's mouth (0.5 m or 2 m), positioning of plate (directly in front of or diagonal to the participant's mouth), type of endodontic treatment performed and the duration of treatment. A baseline sample was collected (room at rest) as a control. All dental treatment was carried out under rubber dam, after patients had undergone a pre-operative 0.12% chlorhexidine digluconate mouth rinse for 60 seconds. An extraoral suction system (ADS EOS Dental System Inc; Ontario, CA, USA) was also placed directly in front of the patient's mouth throughout treatment.

Results A significantly greater number of CFUs were recorded after endodontic treatments (all treatments), compared to negative control. CFUs were lower in the emergency pulpotomy group compared to the other two groups. There was a significantly lower number of CFUs found at plates situated 0.5 m, compared to 2 m, away from the patient. There was a positive correlation between the procedure duration and CFU count. The main bacterial species detected were Staphylococcus aureus (48.8%), Staphlococcus epidermidis (42.2%) and oral streptococci (33.1%). Pseudomonas aeruginosa and fungi were not detected.

Conclusion Emergency pulpectomy and NSRCT created greater microbial contamination than an emergency pulpotomy. Greater numbers of microorganisms were found after longer treatment times and closer to the patient's mouth.

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.

COVID-19 and Dentistry in 72 Questions: An Overview of the Literature

The outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has significantly affected the dental care sector. Dental professionals are at high risk of being infected, and therefore transmitting SARS-CoV-2, due to the nature of their profession, with close proximity to the patient's oropharyngeal and nasal regions and the use of aerosol-generating procedures. The aim of this article is to provide an update on different issues regarding SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 that may be relevant for dentists. Members of the French National College of Oral Biology Lecturers ("Collège National des EnseignantS en Biologie Orale"; CNESBO-COVID19 Task Force) answered seventy-two questions related to various topics, including epidemiology, virology, immunology, diagnosis and testing, SARS-CoV-2 transmission and oral cavity, COVID-19 clinical presentation, current treatment options, vaccine strategies, as well as infection prevention and control in dental practice. The questions were selected based on their relevance for dental practitioners. Authors independently extracted and gathered scientific data related to COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 and the specific topics using scientific databases. With this review, the dental practitioners will have a general overview of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on their practice.

Seroprevalence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in an Italian cohort in Marche Region, Italy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, declared a public health emergency by the World Health Organization. In this study, we evaluated the seroconversion of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies to find predictors of infection in terms of symptoms, health status, and professions.

METHODS

Serological samples of 341 volunteers in a cohort in Marche Region, Italy, were analyzed for the presence of IgM and/or IgG immunoglobulins specific for the SARS-CoV-2. Contextually, an anamnestic questionnaire was administered. The binary logistic regression analysis was used to find the predictors of seroconversion.

RESULTS

Forty-nine subjects (14.4 %) were found positive, without significant differences between gender and age groups. The predictors identified inside the variable categories "symptoms," "risk factors" (smoking habit and established pathologies), and "professions" were the loss of taste and smell (OR, 8.563), cardiovascular diseases (OR, 2.912), and policeman profession (OR, 3.875), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the limited number of subjects recruited in this study, our results could give important findings to be considered for planning preventive strategies in the view of the next COVID-19 waves.