Reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 with patient-collected swabs and saline gargles: A three-headed comparison on multiple molecular platforms.

With increasing demands for SARS-CoV-2 testing, as well as the shortages for testing supplies, collection devices, and trained healthcare workers (HCWs) to collect specimens, self-collection is an attractive prospect to reduce the need for HCWs and expenditure of personal protective equipment. Apart from the traditional nasopharyngeal swab used for SARS-CoV-2 detection, alternative specimens have been validated such as a combined swabs of the oropharynx and anterior nares (OP/N), or throat samples using saline gargles. Both the alternative specimen types are amenable to self-collection. Objectives. This study aimed to compare the sensitivity of HCW-collected (OP/N) swabs, self-collected OP/N swabs, and self-collected saline gargles. Among 38 individuals previously testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (or their close contacts), two self-collected specimen types (OP/N and saline gargles) were compared to HCW-collected OP/N swabs. SARS-CoV-2 testing was performed on three molecular assays: a laboratory-developed test (LDT), and two commercial assays on automated platforms: Cobas 6800 (Roche Diagnostics) and Panther (Hologic). The sensitivity of self-collected OP/N swabs was equivalent to healthcare worker (HCW)-collected OP/N swabs at 100.0 % [92.6%-100.0%] for all three molecular tests. The sensitivity of saline gargles was not significantly different than HCW-collected OP/N swabs, but varied slightly between instruments at 93.8 % [85.9%-93.8%] for the LDT, 96.8 % [88.6%-96.8%] for the Cobas assay, and 96.7 % [89.2%-96.9%] for the Panther assay. Overall, self-collection using OP/N swabs or saline gargles are reasonable alternatives to HCW-based collections for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and could facilitate broader surveillance strategies.

LeBlanc JJ ，Pettipas J ，Di Quinzio M ，Hatchette TF ，Patriquin G ... -  《-》

Variation in SARS-CoV-2 molecular test sensitivity by specimen types in a large sample of emergency department patients.

Provider-collected nasopharyngeal specimens for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) molecular testing are the standard of care in many clinical settings, but patient-collected saliva and anterior nares specimens are less invasive and more flexible alternatives. Prior studies comparing specimen types for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing have been limited by small sample sizes and low pretest probability. We conducted a large observational study among symptomatic adults at 7 emergency departments of Kaiser Permanente Southern California to examine sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 molecular tests by specimen type and patient characteristics. Provider-collected nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal (NP/OP) specimens and patient-collected saliva and anterior nares specimens were collected at the same visit and analyzed with the Roche cobas® SARS-CoV-2 assay. Patients were considered truly positive for SARS-CoV-2 if any of the three specimens was positive and negative if all three specimens were negative. Factors associated with discordant and missed positive results were examined with multivariable logistic regression. Of 2112 patients, 350 (16.6%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sensitivity of NP/OP was 93.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 90.6%-96.0%), sensitivity of saliva was 87.7% (83.8%-91.0%), and sensitivity of anterior nares was 85.4% (81.3%-89.0%). Patients ages 18-39 years versus ≥40 years were more likely to have discordant results [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.97 (1.12-3.45)], as were patients with <4 symptoms versus ≥4 [aOR 2.43 (1.39-4.25)]. Cycle threshold values were higher for saliva and anterior nares than NP/OP specimens, as well as for specimens in discordant versus concordant sets and patients with fewer symptoms. This study provides robust evidence that patient-collected saliva and anterior nares are sensitive for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing in emergency department settings, particularly among adults ages ≥40 years and those with multiple symptoms. Higher sensitivity of provider-collected NP/OP specimens must be weighed against the benefits of patient-collected specimens in tailored strategies for SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Bruxvoort K ，Tenggardjaja CF ，Slezak J ，Gullett JC ，Broder B ，Park CH ，Aragones M ，Mercado C ，Wong K ，McLaren S ，Jacobsen SJ ... -  《-》

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 ... -  《-》

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 ... -  《-》