IMPORTANCE Nasopharyngeal swab nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is the noninvasive criterion standard for diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 . However, it requires trained personnel, limiting its availability. Saliva NAAT represents an attractive alternative, but its diagnostic performance is unclear.OBJECTIVE To assess the diagnostic accuracy of saliva NAAT for COVID-19.DATA SOURCES In this systematic review, a search of the MEDLINE and medRxiv databases was conducted on August 29, 2020, to find studies of diagnostic test accuracy. The final meta-analysis was performed on November 17, 2020.STUDY SELECTION Studies needed to provide enough data to measure salivary NAAT sensitivity and specificity compared with imperfect nasopharyngeal swab NAAT as a reference test. An imperfect reference test does not perfectly reflect the truth (ie, it can give false results). Studies were excluded if the sample contained fewer than 20 participants or was neither random nor consecutive. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias.DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline was followed for the systematic review, with multiple authors involved at each stage of the review. To account for the imperfect reference test sensitivity, we used a bayesian latent class bivariate model for the meta-analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was pooled sensitivity and specificity. Two secondary analyses were performed: one restricted to peer-reviewed studies, and a post hoc analysis limited to ambulatory settings. RESULTSThe search strategy yielded 385 references, and 16 unique studies were identified for quantitative synthesis. Eight peer-reviewed studies and 8 preprints were included in the meta-analyses (5922 unique patients). There was significant variability in patient selection, study design, and stage of illness at which patients were enrolled. Fifteen studies included ambulatory patients, and 9 exclusively enrolled from an outpatient population with mild or no symptoms. In the primary analysis, the saliva NAAT pooled sensitivity was 83.2% (95% credible interval [CrI], 74.7%-91.4%) and the pooled specificity was 99.2% (95% CrI, 98.2%-99.8%). The nasopharyngeal swab NAAT had a sensitivity of 84.8% (95% CrI, 76.8%-92.4%) and a specificity of 98.9% (95% CrI, 97.4%-99.8%). Results were similar in secondary analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThese results suggest that saliva NAAT diagnostic accuracy is similar to that of nasopharyngeal swab NAAT, especially in the ambulatory setting. These findings support larger-scale research on the use of saliva NAAT as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs.

No abstract

The OAS1/2/3 cluster has been identified as a risk locus for severe COVID-19 among individuals of European ancestry, with a protective haplotype of approximately 75 kilobases (kb) derived from Neanderthals in the chromosomal region 12q24.13. This haplotype contains a splice variant of OAS1, which occurs in people of African ancestry independently of gene flow from Neanderthals. Using trans-ancestry fine-mapping approaches in 20,779 hospitalized cases, we demonstrate that this splice variant is likely to be the SNP responsible for the association at this locus, thus strongly implicating OAS1 as an effector gene influencing COVID-19 severity.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), a respiratory illness that can result in hospitalization or death. We used exome-sequence data to investigate associations between rare genetic variants and seven COVID-19 outcomes in 586,157 individuals, including 20,952 with COVID-19. After accounting for multiple testing, we did not identify any clear associations with rare variants either exome-wide or when specifically focusing on (i) 13 interferon pathway genes in which rare deleterious variants have been reported in individuals with severe COVID-19; (ii) 281 genes located in susceptibility loci identified by the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative; or (iii) 32 additional genes of immunologic relevance and/or therapeutic potential. Our analyses indicate there are no significant associations with rare protein-coding variants with detectable effect sizes at our current sample sizes. Analyses will be updated as additional data become available, with results publicly available through the Regeneron Genetics Center COVID-19 Results Browser.

Background Increased vitamin D levels, as reflected by 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25OHD) measurements, have been proposed to protect against COVID-19 based on in vitro, observational, and ecological studies. However, vitamin D levels are associated with many confounding variables, and thus associations described to date may not be causal. Vitamin D Mendelian randomization (MR) studies have provided results that are concordant with large-scale vitamin D randomized trials. Here, we used 2-sample MR to assess evidence supporting a causal effect of circulating 25OHD levels on COVID-19 susceptibility and severity. Methods and findings Genetic variants strongly associated with 25OHD levels in a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 443,734 participants of European ancestry (including 401,460 from the UK Biobank) were used as instrumental variables. GWASs of COVID-19 susceptibility, hospitalization, and severe disease from the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative were used as outcome GWASs. These included up to 14,134 individuals with COVID-19, and up to 1,284,876 without COVID-19, from up to 11 countries. SARS-CoV-2 positivity was determined by laboratory testing or medical chart review. Population controls without COVID-19 were also included in the control groups for all outcomes, including hospitalization and severe disease. Analyses were restricted to individuals of European descent when possible. Using inverse-weighted MR, genetically increased 25OHD levels by 1 standard deviation on the logarithmic scale had no significant association with COVID-19 susceptibility (odds ratio [OR] = 0.95; 95% CI 0.84, 1.08; p = 0.44), hospitalization (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.89, 1.33; p = 0.41), and severe disease (OR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.77, 1.22; p = 0.77). We used an additional 6 meta-analytic methods, as well as conducting sensitivity analyses after removal of variants at risk of horizontal pleiotropy, and obtained similar results. These results may be limited by weak instrument bias in some analyses. Further, our results do not apply to individuals with vitamin D deficiency. Conclusions In this 2-sample MR study, we did not observe evidence to support an association between 25OHD levels and COVID-19 susceptibility, severity, or hospitalization. Hence, vitamin D supplementation as a means of protecting against worsened COVID-19 outcomes is not supported by genetic evidence. Other therapeutic or preventative avenues should be given higher priority for COVID-19 randomized controlled trials.

Background: Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) can be a life-threatening opportunistic infection in immunocompromised hosts. The diagnosis can be challenging, often requiring semi-invasive respiratory sampling. The serum 1,3-b-D-glucan (BDG) assay has been proposed as a minimally invasive test for the presumptive diagnosis of PJP. Method: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis using articles in the English language published between January 1960 and September 2019. We estimated the pooled sensitivity and specificity of BDG testing using a bivariate random effects approach and compared test performance in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and non-HIV subgroups with meta-regression. Data from the pooled sensitivity and specificity were transformed to generate pre-and post-test probability curves. Results: Twenty-three studies were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of serum BDG testing for PJP were 91% (95%CI 87e94%) and 79% (95%CI 72e84%) respectively. The sensitivity in patients with HIV was better than in patients without (94%, 95%CI 91e96%) versus 86% (95%CI 78e91%) (p 0.02), with comparable specificity (83%, 95%CI 69e92% versus 83%, 95%CI 72e90%) (p 0.10). A negative BDG was only associated with a low post-test probability of PJP (5%) when the pre-test probability was low to intermediate (20% in non-HIV and 50% in HIV). Conclusions: Among patients with a higher likelihood of PJP, the pooled sensitivity of BDG is insufficient to exclude infection. Similarly, for most cases, the pooled specificity is inadequate to diagnose PJP. Understanding the performance of BDG in the population being investigated is therefore essential to optimal clinical decision-making.

No abstract

JBR has served as an advisor to GlaxoSmithKline and Deerfield Capital. His institution has received investigator-initiated grant funding from Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline and Biogen for projects unrelated to this paper. DP has served as an advisory board, and has received travel/research grants, speaking and teaching fees for Macopharma,