COVID‐19 screening test by using random oropharyngeal saliva

Abstract

An optimal clinical specimen for accurate detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) by minimizing the usage of consumables and reduce hazard exposure to healthcare workers is an urgent priority. The diagnostic performance of SARS‐CoV‐2 detection between healthcare worker‐collected nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal (NP + OP) swabs and patient performed self‐collected random saliva was assessed. Paired NP + OP swabs and random saliva were collected and processed within 48 h of specimen collection from two cohort studies which recruited 562 asymptomatic adult candidates. Real‐time reverse‐transcription polymerase chain reaction targeting Open reading frame 1a (ORF1a) and nucleocapsid (N) genes was performed and the results were compared. Overall, 65 of 562 (28.1%) candidates tested positive for COVID‐19 based on random saliva, NP + OP swabs, or both testing techniques. The detection rate of SARS‐CoV‐2 was higher in random saliva compared to NP + OP testing (92.3%; 60/65 vs. 73.8%; 48/65; p < .05). The estimated sensitivity and specificity of random saliva were higher than NP + OP swabs (95.0; 99.9 vs. 72.2; 99.4). The Ct values of ORF1a and N genes were significantly lower in random saliva compared to NP + OP swabs specimens. Our findings demonstrate that random saliva is an alternative diagnostic specimen for the detection of SARS‐CoV‐2. Self‐collected random oropharyngeal saliva is a valuable specimen that provides accurate SARS‐CoV‐2 surveillance testing of a community.

Les variants du SARS-CoV-2 face au dépistage et aux vaccins

“…Les politiques de dépistage ont fait l’objet de nombreuses différences d’un pays à l’autre, certains comme la France, ayant rendu l’accès gratuit largement, afin d’être en mesure d’effectuer une surveillance large de la circulation virale. Les tests PCR, effectués à partir de prélèvements nasopharyngés et de salives [5] , ont été implantés dans de nombreux laboratoires de ville. Si les tests antigéniques sont moins sensibles, rapides et faciles à mettre en place, ils constituent des outils de surveillance de la circulation virale en population [6] .…”

One-Year Update on Salivary Diagnostic of COVID-19

“…The pioneer study that detected viable SARS-CoV-2 in oral fluid promoted a paradigm shift in diagnosis, monitoring, and infection control for COVID-19 (38). However, the sensitivity of salivary SARS-CoV-2 RNA to diagnose COVID-19 needs to be carefully checked because some data are based on trials designed to evaluate oropharyngeal fluid mixed with saliva (38,39,(57)(58)(59). In classical studies with salivary collection, the patient is not required to cough out fluid from their throat.…”

A narrative review of exploring potential salivary biomarkers in respiratory diseases: still on its way

“…It has been reported that influenza virus A, Ebola virus, Cytomegalovirus, and Herpes simplex virus could be identified in salivary samples (68). During the pandemic of COVID-19, testing of saliva samples for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) attracted a lot of attention because of the ease associated with self-collection and a decrease in the risk of exposure associated with the collection of nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal samples by healthcare workers (39,40,(69)(70)(71)(72)(73)(74). The coincidence rate for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 between salivary samples and nasopharyngeal swabs was 91.7~100% (39,40).…”