Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.

MedStar author(s):
Citation: Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2020 Dec 01PMID: 33262219Institution: MedStar Health Research Institute | MedStar Washington Hospital CenterDepartment: Medicine/Infectious Diseases | NursingForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: IN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXEDYear: 2020Local holdings: Available online from MWHC library: 1975 - present (after 6 months), Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - 2001ISSN:
  • 0095-1137
Name of journal: Journal of clinical microbiologyAbstract: We evaluated saliva (SAL) specimens for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing by comparison of 459 prospectively paired nasopharyngeal (NP) or mid-turbinate (MT) swabs from 449 individuals with the aim of using saliva for asymptomatic screening. Samples were collected in a drive-through car line for symptomatic individuals (N=380) and in the emergency department (ED) (N=69). The percent positive and negative agreement of saliva compared to nasopharyngeal swab were 81.1% (95% CI: 65.8% - 90.5%) and 99.8% (95% CI: 98.7% - 100%), respectively. The percent positive agreement increased to 90.0% (95% CI: 74.4% - 96.5%) when considering only samples with moderate to high viral load (Cycle threshold (Ct) for the NP <=34). Pools of five saliva specimens were also evaluated on three platforms: bioMerieux NucliSENS easyMAG with ABI 7500Fast (CDC assay), Hologic Panther Fusion R, and Roche COBAS R 6800. The average loss of signal upon pooling was 2-3 Ct values across the platforms. The sensitivity of detecting a positive specimen in a pool compared with testing individually was 94%, 90%, and 94% for CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR, Panther Fusion R SARS-CoV-2 assay, and cobas R SARS-CoV-2 test respectively, with decreased sample detection trending with lower viral load. We conclude that although pooled saliva testing, as collected in this study, is not quite as sensitive as NP/MT testing, saliva testing is adequate to detect individuals with higher viral loads in an asymptomatic screening program, does not require swabs or viral transport media for collection, and may help to improve voluntary screening compliance for those individuals averse to various forms of nasal collections.All authors: Barat B, Das S, De Giorgi V, Frank KM, Henderson DK, Kopka S, Lau AF, Miller T, Moriarty T, Palmore TN, Sawney S, Spalding C, Tanjutco P, Wortmann G, Zelazny AMFiscal year: FY2021Digital Object Identifier: Date added to catalog: 2020-12-31
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article 33262219 Available 33262219

Available online from MWHC library: 1975 - present (after 6 months), Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - 2001

We evaluated saliva (SAL) specimens for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing by comparison of 459 prospectively paired nasopharyngeal (NP) or mid-turbinate (MT) swabs from 449 individuals with the aim of using saliva for asymptomatic screening. Samples were collected in a drive-through car line for symptomatic individuals (N=380) and in the emergency department (ED) (N=69). The percent positive and negative agreement of saliva compared to nasopharyngeal swab were 81.1% (95% CI: 65.8% - 90.5%) and 99.8% (95% CI: 98.7% - 100%), respectively. The percent positive agreement increased to 90.0% (95% CI: 74.4% - 96.5%) when considering only samples with moderate to high viral load (Cycle threshold (Ct) for the NP <=34). Pools of five saliva specimens were also evaluated on three platforms: bioMerieux NucliSENS easyMAG with ABI 7500Fast (CDC assay), Hologic Panther Fusion R, and Roche COBAS R 6800. The average loss of signal upon pooling was 2-3 Ct values across the platforms. The sensitivity of detecting a positive specimen in a pool compared with testing individually was 94%, 90%, and 94% for CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR, Panther Fusion R SARS-CoV-2 assay, and cobas R SARS-CoV-2 test respectively, with decreased sample detection trending with lower viral load. We conclude that although pooled saliva testing, as collected in this study, is not quite as sensitive as NP/MT testing, saliva testing is adequate to detect individuals with higher viral loads in an asymptomatic screening program, does not require swabs or viral transport media for collection, and may help to improve voluntary screening compliance for those individuals averse to various forms of nasal collections.

English

Powered by Koha