Salivary SARS-CoV-2 RNA for diagnosis of COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy

Caixeta, Douglas Carvalho; Paranhos, Luiz Renato; Blumenberg, Cauane; Garcia-Junior, Marcelo A.; Guevara-Vega, Marco; Taveira, Elisa Borges; Nunes, Marjorie Adriane Costa; Cunha, Thúlio Marquez; Jardim, Ana Carolina Gomes; Flores-Mir, Carlos; Sabino-Silva, Robinson

doi:10.1016/j.jdsr.2023.06.004

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 99 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For SARS-CoV-2 detection, saliva samples have been more widely studied [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27], including some huge meta-analysis-reinforced saliva samples for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. For example, a systematic review and meta-analysis compared the diagnostic performance of various clinical sampling methods and including 16,762 respiratory samples describing high specificities (range 97-99%) and a negative predictive value (range 95-99%) among different clinical specimens [19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influenza A, like Omicron SARS-CoV-2, Is Similarly Detected in Saliva or Nasopharyngeal Samples via RT-qPCR

Abreu,

Royer,

Poitevin

et al. 2023

Viruses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After the Coronavirus pandemic, the importance of virus surveillance was highlighted, reinforcing the constant necessity of discussing and updating the methods for collection and diagnoses, including for other respiratory viruses. Although the nasopharyngeal swab is the gold-standard sample for detecting and genotyping SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza viruses, its collection is uncomfortable and requires specialized teams, which can be costly. During the pandemic, non-invasive saliva samples proved to be a suitable alternative for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, but for Influenza virus the use of this sample source is not recognized yet. In addition, most SARS-CoV-2 comparisons were conducted before the Omicron variant emerged. Here, we aimed to compare Influenza A and Omicron RT-qPCR analysis of nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva self-collection in paired samples from 663 individuals. We found that both nasopharyngeal swab and saliva collection are efficient for the diagnosis of Omicron (including sub-lineages) and for Influenza A, with high sensitivity and accuracy (>90%). The kappa index is 0.938 for Influenza A and 0.905 for SARS-CoV-2. These results showed excellent agreement between the two samples reinforcing saliva samples as a reliable source for detecting Omicron and highlighting saliva as a valid sample source for Influenza detection, considering this cheaper and more comfortable alternative.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study conducted by Caixeta et al [23] included 14,043 participants from 21 countries in their systematic review and meta-analysis. The results showed that saliva had an accuracy of 94.3%, specificity of 96.4%, and sensitivity of 89.2% compared to the reference tests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influenza A, like Omicron SARS-CoV-2, Is Similarly Detected in Saliva or Nasopharyngeal Samples via RT-qPCR

Abreu,

Royer,

Poitevin

et al. 2023

Viruses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the CDC, the National Health Service (NHS), and other relevant dental associations, oral screening could play an important role in the early diagnosis of several infectious diseases, including mpox [ 2 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 79 ]. In addition, thorough patient assessment could lead to easier identification of risk factors, thus allowing the dentist to not only identify these lesions but also provide patient orientation, which could help slow down viral spread [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 80 , 81 , 82 ].…”

Section: Measures To Dentists and Frontline Healthcare Workersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral Infection, Oral Pathology and Salivary Diagnostics of Mpox Disease: Relevance in Dentistry and OMICs Perspectives

Garcia-Junior,

Andrade,

Guevara-Vega

et al. 2023

IJMS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this narrative review, we aim to point out the close relationship between mpox virus (MPXV) infection and the role of saliva as a diagnostic tool for mpox, considering the current molecular approach and in the perspective of OMICs application. The MPXV uses the host cell’s rough endoplasmic reticulum, ribosomes, and cytoplasmic proteins to replicate its genome and synthesize virions for cellular exit. The presence of oral mucosa lesions associated with mpox infection is one of the first signs of infection; however, current diagnostic tools find it difficult to detect the virus before the rashes begin. MPXV transmission occurs through direct contact with an infected lesion and infected body fluids, including saliva, presenting a potential use of this fluid for diagnostic purposes. Currently available diagnostic tests for MPXV detection are performed either by real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) or ELISA, which presents several limitations since they are invasive tests. Despite current clinical trials with restricted sample size, MPXV DNA was detected in saliva with a sensitivity of 85%–100%. In this context, the application of transcriptomics, metabolomics, lipidomics, or proteomics analyses coupled with saliva can identify novel disease biomarkers. Thus, it is important to note that the identification and quantification of salivary DNA, RNA, lipid, protein, and metabolite can provide novel non-invasive biomarkers through the use of OMICs platforms aiding in the early detection and diagnosis of MPXV infection. Untargeted mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics reveals that some proteins also expressed in saliva were detected with greater expression differences in blood plasma when comparing mpox patients and healthy subjects, suggesting a promising alternative to be applied in screening or diagnostic platforms for mpox salivary diagnostics coupled to OMICs.

show abstract

“…Wyllie et al [ 24 ] found that MSTs are more sensitive to SARS-CoV-2 detection in COVID-19 patients than NPSs. In their systematic review, Caixeta et al [ 25 ] reported an 89% sensitivity, 96% specificity, and 93% accuracy of MSTs. In a previous study, our group reported the results of a school surveillance programme covering 401 students and 12 teachers for the early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection using MSTs; we detected five positive cases during the six-week study period before the introduction of vaccines [ 26 ].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19 monitoring of school personnel through molecular salivary test and dried blood spot analysis

Henin,

Fappani,

Carmagnola

et al. 2024

J Glob Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background When the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic broke out, most countries enforced school closures as a precautionary measure. Although COVID-19 is still present three years later, schools have been reopened. We aimed to test the association of molecular salivary testing (MST) and dried blood spot (DBS) analysis for community surveillance by investigating the immunological profile of a group of school staff during and following COVID-19 vaccination. Methods We conducted the study in a school in Milan from April 2021, when school staff were administered the first dose of vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, until the school year ended in June 2022. Each participant provided samples for MST and DBS one month (T1, W1) after receiving their first dose of vaccine. Subsequently, they collected weekly MST samples for five weeks (W2-W6), plus a DBS sample in the last week (T2). Both samples were collected one (T3), four (T4), and seven months (T5) after the administration of the second vaccine dose in May 2021. A final DBS sample was collected one year (T6) after T3. Results Sixty participants provided 327 MSTs and 251 DBSs. None of the MST samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA during the study period. A total of 201 DBS samples tested positive for the IgG semiquantitative analysis. Negative samples were found only at T1 (20.45%) and T2 (7.32%). We observed borderline results at T1 (4.55%), T2 (7.32%), and T4 (2.70%). The anti-SARS-CoV-2 average antibody ratio increased after the second dose between T2 and T3, and the trend peaked after the third dose between T4 and T6. We performed an immunoenzymatic assay of antibodies against nucleocapsid protein on samples collected at T1 from five participants who reported having been infected before the study and from four subjects with an abnormal increase in the antibody values at T4. Two samples tested positive in the first group and two in the second one. Conclusions Our findings show that MST and DBS could be effective tools in the active surveillance of school personnel and that schools could be considered safe settings in view of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccines might have contributed to case and/or symptom reduction.

show abstract

Salivary SARS-CoV-2 RNA for diagnosis of COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy

Cited by 5 publications

References 99 publications

Influenza A, like Omicron SARS-CoV-2, Is Similarly Detected in Saliva or Nasopharyngeal Samples via RT-qPCR

Influenza A, like Omicron SARS-CoV-2, Is Similarly Detected in Saliva or Nasopharyngeal Samples via RT-qPCR

Oral Infection, Oral Pathology and Salivary Diagnostics of Mpox Disease: Relevance in Dentistry and OMICs Perspectives

COVID-19 monitoring of school personnel through molecular salivary test and dried blood spot analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About