Performance of Saliva, Oropharyngeal Swabs, and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the highest-yield sample for diagnostic testing for respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The need to increase capacity for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a variety of settings, combined with shortages of sample collection supplies, have motivated a search for alternative sample types with high sensitivity. We systematically reviewed the literature to understand the performance of alternative sample types compared to NP swabs. We systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv (last retrieval 1 October 2020) for comparative studies of alternative specimen types (saliva, oropharyngeal [OP], and nasal [NS] swabs) versus NP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). A logistic-normal random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate % positive alternative-specimen, % positive NP, and % dual positives overall and in subgroups. The QUADAS 2 tool was used to assess bias. From 1,253 unique citations, we identified 25 saliva, 11 NS, 6 OP, and 4 OP/NS studies meeting inclusion criteria. Three specimen types captured lower % positives (NS [82%, 95% CI: 73 to 90%], OP [84%, 95% CI: 57 to 100%], and saliva [88%, 95% CI: 81 to 93%]) than NP swabs, while combined OP/NS matched NP performance (97%, 95% CI: 90 to 100%). Absence of RNA extraction (saliva) and utilization of a more sensitive NAAT (NS) substantially decreased alternative-specimen yield of positive samples. NP swabs remain the gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, although alternative specimens are promising. Much remains unknown about the impact of variations in specimen collection, processing protocols, and population (pediatric versus adult, late versus early in disease course), such that head-to head studies of sampling strategies are urgently needed.

Lee RA ，Herigon JC ，Benedetti A ，Pollock NR ，Denkinger CM ... -  《-》

Diagnostic performance of different sampling approaches for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The comparative performance of different clinical sampling methods for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR among populations with suspected infection remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of different clinical specimen collection methods. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and Research Square from Jan 1, 2000, to Nov 16, 2020. We included original clinical studies that examined the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs and any additional respiratory specimens for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals presenting in ambulatory care. Studies without data on paired samples, or those that only examined different samples from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases were not useful for examining diagnostic performance of a test and were excluded. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, was examined using random effects models and double arcsine transformation. Of the 5577 studies identified in our search, 23 studies including 7973 participants with 16 762 respiratory samples were included. Respiratory specimens examined in these studies included 7973 nasopharyngeal swabs, 1622 nasal swabs, 6110 saliva samples, 338 throat swabs, and 719 pooled nasal and throat swabs. Using nasopharyngeal swabs as the gold standard, pooled nasal and throat swabs gave the highest sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 93-100), whereas lower sensitivities were achieved by saliva (85%, 75-93) and nasal swabs (86%, 77-93) and a much lower sensitivity by throat swabs (68%, 35-94). A comparably high positive predictive value was obtained by pooled nasal and throat (97%, 90-100) and nasal swabs (96%, 87-100) and a slightly lower positive predictive value by saliva (93%, 88-97). Throat swabs have the lowest positive predictive value of 75% (95% CI 45-96). Comparably high specificities (range 97-99%) and negative predictive value (range 95-99%) were observed among different clinical specimens. Comparison between health-care-worker collection and self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs showed comparable diagnostic performance. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the analysis of pooled nasal and throat swabs and throat swabs, whereas moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I2 ≥30%) was observed in studies on saliva and nasal swabs. Our review suggests that, compared with the gold standard of nasopharyngeal swabs, pooled nasal and throat swabs offered the best diagnostic performance of the alternative sampling approaches for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ambulatory care. Saliva and nasal swabs gave comparable and very good diagnostic performance and are clinically acceptable alternative specimen collection methods. Throat swabs gave a much lower sensitivity and positive predictive value and should not be recommended. Self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs was not associated with any significant impairment of diagnostic accuracy. Our results also provide a useful reference framework for the proper interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 testing results using different clinical specimens. Hong Kong Research Grants Council.

Tsang NNY ，So HC ，Ng KY ，Cowling BJ ，Leung GM ，Ip DKM ... -  《-》

COVID-19 screening test by using random oropharyngeal saliva.

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.

Rao M ，Rashid FA ，Sabri FSAH ，Jamil NN ，Seradja V ，Abdullah NA ，Ahmad H ，Aren SL ，Ali SAS ，Ghazali M ，Manaf AA ，Talib H ，Hashim R ，Zain R ，Thayan R ，Amran F ，Aris T ，Ahmad N ... -  《-》

The Sensitivity and Costs of Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Infection With Saliva Versus Nasopharyngeal Swabs : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Bastos ML ，Perlman-Arrow S ，Menzies D ，Campbell JR ... -  《-》

A Multiplex One-Step RT-qPCR Protocol to Detect SARS-CoV-2 in NP/OP Swabs and Saliva.

Since December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has spread extensively throughout the world, with more than 117 million reported cases and 2.6 million deaths (Johns Hopkins coronavirus resource center, https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html). Detecting the virus is the first step in diagnosing the infection, followed by quarantine to prevent transmission. Nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs (NP/OP) and saliva are two specimen types that are most often analyzed to detect SARS-CoV-2 by molecular tests that detect viral RNA or by antigen/antibody tests that detect viral proteins and/or the host immune response against the virus. Compared to antigen/antibody tests, molecular tests are highly sensitive and specific for detecting the virus. A significant drawback is that specimen collection requirements are specific to each test and cannot be interchanged with another test. Some tests are qualified to be used on NP swabs or saliva, but not both specimen types. Even with NP swabs, a test may be qualified to detect the virus only with swabs collected in viral transport medium (VTM) but not in other media. These restrictive pre-analytic steps are disadvantageous in that a lab would have to develop and validate different tests for SARS-CoV-2 depending on the specimen type and collection media, with added setup cost, infrastructure, and training requirements. To overcome these problems, we developed and validated a cost-effective multiplex reverse-transcription real-time PCR assay that can be used to detect SARS-CoV-2 in different specimen types. The assay is highly sensitive and specific, can be used to detect the virus in saliva as well as NP swabs collected in different media such as VTM, saline, and commercial preservative fluid, and serves as one test for all applications. The protocol also describes an optimal laboratory setup and unidirectional workflow for detecting SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR. © 2021 The Authors. Current Protocols published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol 1: Manual viral nucleic acid extraction from NP/OP swabs collected in different media, and from saliva Alternate Protocol 1: Low-throughput automated extraction on the Qiagen EZ1 Advanced XL machine (1-14 samples) Alternate Protocol 2: High-throughput automated extraction on the Kingfisher Flex machine (1-96 samples) Basic Protocol 2: Multiplex RT-qPCR protocol to detect SARS-CoV-2 Alternate Protocol 3: Multiplex one-step RT-qPCR protocol to detect SARS-CoV-2 with S and E gene probes labeled with the same fluorochrome.

Bland J ，Kavanaugh A ，Hong LK ，Perez O ，Kadkol SS ... -  《-》