Saliva sample pooling for the detection of SARS‐CoV‐2

Pasomsub, Ekawat; Watcharananan, Siriorn P.; Watthanachockchai, Treewat; Rakmanee, Kingkan; Tassaneetrithep, Boonrat; Kiertiburanakul, Sasisopin; Phuphuakrat, Angsana

doi:10.1002/jmv.26460

Cited by 34 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this approach needs to be balanced with feasibility in the laboratory because pooled testing adds additional steps and complexity to the system, all of which must be reliably implemented. Furthermore, pooled approaches could incorporate retesting individual samples from pools generating any SARS-CoV-2-specific signal in quantitative reverse transcription PCR regardless of C t (in place of those pools with the <38 C t cutoff applied here) (9). Although pooling has traditionally focused on extracted nucleic acid before quantitative reverse transcription PCR (10)(11)(12), because of the expense of RNA extraction and a comparable effect on detection sensitivity (Appendix), we recommend pooling before RNA extraction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increased SARS-CoV-2 Testing Capacity with Pooled Saliva Samples

Watkins¹,

Fenichel²,

Weinberger³

et al. 2021

Emerg. Infect. Dis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increased SARS-CoV-2 Testing Capacity with Pooled Saliva Samples

Watkins¹,

Fenichel²,

Weinberger³

et al. 2021

Emerg. Infect. Dis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When pooling was applied, sensitivity was 100%, 93%, and 95% for the easyMAG/ABI 7500, Panther Fusion, and COBAS 6800, respectively. To date, only a few studies have evaluated the pooling of saliva (26, 27). Pooling conserves reagents and allows for higher throughput.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing

Barat

Das

Giorgi

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 sensitivity 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: bioMérieux NucliSENS easyMAG with ABI 7500Fast (CDC assay), Hologic Panther Fusion, and Roche COBAS 6800. The median loss of signal upon pooling was 2-4 Ct values across the platforms. The sensitivity of detecting a positive specimen in a pool compared with testing individually was 100%, 93%, and 95% for CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR, Panther Fusion® SARS-CoV-2 assay, and cobas® 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.

show abstract

Section: Downloaded Frommentioning

confidence: 99%

Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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: bioMérieux NucliSENS easyMAG with ABI 7500Fast (CDC assay), Hologic Panther Fusion®, and Roche COBAS® 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® SARS-CoV-2 assay, and cobas® 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.

show abstract

Saliva sample pooling for the detection of SARS‐CoV‐2

Cited by 34 publications

References 21 publications

Increased SARS-CoV-2 Testing Capacity with Pooled Saliva Samples

Increased SARS-CoV-2 Testing Capacity with Pooled Saliva Samples

Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing

Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About