Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

COVID-19 Screening in a Healthcare Or Community Setting: Complexity of Saliva As a Specimen for PCR-based Testing

2020; Future Science Ltd; Volume: 13; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.4155/fmc-2020-0255

1756-8927

Nikhil Sahajpal, Ashis K. Mondal, Allan Njau, Sudha Ananth, S. Ghamande, Madhuri Hegde, Alka Chaubey, Amyn M. Rojiani, Ravindra Kolhe,

SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research

Future Medicinal ChemistryVol. 13, No. 1 EditorialFree AccessCOVID-19 screening in a healthcare or community setting: complexity of saliva as a specimen for PCR-based testingNikhil Shri Sahajpal, Ashis K Mondal, Allan Njau, Sudha Ananth, Salil Ghamande, Madhuri Hegde, Alka Chaubey, Amyn M Rojiani & Ravindra KolheNikhil Shri SahajpalDepartment of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA, Ashis K MondalDepartment of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA, Allan NjauDepartment of Pathology, Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya, Sudha AnanthDepartment of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA, Salil GhamandeUniversity of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA, Madhuri HegdePerkinElmer Genomics, Duluth, GA, USA, Alka ChaubeyPerkinElmer Genomics, Duluth, GA, USA, Amyn M RojianiDepartment of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA & Ravindra Kolhe*Author for correspondence: Tel.: +1 706 721 2771; E-mail Address: rkolhe@augusta.eduDepartment of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USAPublished Online:24 Nov 2020https://doi.org/10.4155/fmc-2020-0255AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Keywords: communityCOVID-19diagnosticshealthcarePCR testsalivaTesting for SARS-CoV-2 has highly significant clinical and epidemiological implications in the current COVID-19 pandemic. Reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR)-based assays are the predicate method for detecting the virus, primarily from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. However, collection of NPS samples poses certain challenges that include exposure risk to healthcare workers, supply chain constraints pertaining to swabs and personal protective equipment and self-collection being difficult and less sensitive. Furthermore, several reports have highlighted the relatively poor sensitivity of NPS samples in early infection and longitudinal testing [1–3]. Amid these challenges, several other sample types are under investigation for COVID-19 testing, of which saliva samples are of significant interest owing to their ease of collection and alleviation of some of the challenges with NPS sampling. In the US, the FDA has approved saliva-based collection methods for laboratories submitting for emergency use authorization (https://www.fda.gov/media/136875/download, https://www.fda.gov/media/138294/download).Saliva as a sample has been used for both diagnostics and epidemiological studies in viral infections, including influenza viruses, mumps, polyomavirus, SARS-CoV-2, measles, HIV, hepatitis C virus and herpes simplex viruses, among others. Saliva is a complex biological fluid matrix composed of enzymes, mucins, cells, proteins and normal flora that make it highly adapted for its known digestive and immune functions [4–7]. However, all of these components may lead to various degrees of interference with chemistries employed in diagnostic assays, including sample stabilization/storage, nucleic acid extraction and amplification, that are critical in RT-PCR based assays. Further, residual food/beverages, medications, recreational products (e.g., cigarette smoke residues) and oral hygiene products (e.g., toothpaste and gargles) may all lead to reduced diagnostic yield of targeted infective organism(s) in the oral cavity [8]. Numerous saliva collection methods have been employed with the aim of optimizing this type of sample [9]; however, its utility is not without controversy. Previous studies with paired NPS and saliva sample on a limited number of samples for respiratory viruses collected in controlled environments or with clear instruction to patients have shown comparable performance, with additional viruses detected in saliva [7,10,11], whereas others have found it to be suboptimal [12,13].Initial reports evaluating saliva as a sample type for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 showed promising results, with even lower titer values in early infection compared with NPS samples [14–17]. However, the recent report by Becker et al. demonstrated lower sensitivity of saliva compared with NPS samples and raised concerns over the use of saliva for COVID-19 testing [13]. Although these reports seem to be discrepant at the outset, a thorough analysis highlights that the results are more consistent within a particular sample collection setting. There seems to be an emerging trend that saliva, as a sample type, is a viable option in a healthcare setting where collection is aided by a healthcare professional performed in a controlled environment but not in the community setting, although further studies are needed to verify these early trends. Additionally, further analysis is also needed for analyzing the efficacy of using saliva in the asymptomatic population.Saliva samples collected in a healthcare settingThe initial studies evaluating saliva as a sample type for COVID-19 diagnosis were conducted on severely or moderately ill patients admitted in healthcare facilities. The initial report by To et al. demonstrated the sensitivity of stimulated saliva to be 91.7% compared with NPS samples [14]. Although the study was conducted on only 12 patients, the authors highlighted three critical findings: SARS-CoV-2 was detected in self-collected saliva samples, longitudinal sampling showed a declining trend and viral cultures confirmed live virus in the saliva samples. In a follow-up detailed clinical report of 23 patients performed by To et al., early-morning stimulated saliva demonstrated a sensitivity of 86.9% compared with NPS samples [15]. Similarly, Azzi et al. performed a study on 25 severely ill patients and demonstrated a 100% sensitivity of saliva (collected with drooling technique) compared with NPS samples [16], and Yoon et al. demonstrated a 100% concordance of saliva with NPS samples with high viral titer values in saliva [17]. Although these studies highlight that saliva could be a viable sample type for COVID-19 diagnosis, they are limited by the study design in which NPS samples were considered the gold standard and only included the patients who tested positive with NPS samples. Thus, only a one-sided statistical analysis could be performed, comparing saliva with NPS samples. However, an independent study conducted by Wyllie et al. included 38 patients with matched NPS and unstimulated early morning saliva samples that were both positive and negative with NPS samples [18]. In their analysis, the SARS-CoV-2 titers in saliva were significantly higher than NPS samples. Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in saliva in 21% of samples (negative in matched NPS), whereas only 8% resulted positive with NPS (negative in matched saliva samples). Similarly, Chow et al. demonstrated comparable sensitivities among NPS (96.88% and 98.96%), sputum/deep throat saliva samples (94.03% and 97.02%) and throat swab samples (93.33% and 98.33%) by a one-step high-sensitivity (42 copies/ml) colorimetric reverse-transcriptional loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay [19]. Hence, these studies demonstrate comparable or increased sensitivity of saliva compared with NPS samples in the healthcare setting. Fukumoto et al. demonstrated comparable sensitivity of self-collected unstimulated saliva and NPS but lower sensitivity of sputum in a SARS-CoV-2 detection assay without RNA extraction [20]. Conversely, Lai et al. demonstrated lowest sensitivity of deep throat saliva (68.7%) compared with sputum (89.4%) and pooled NP and throat swabs (80.9%), suggesting sputum to be more sensitive than deep throat saliva samples [21].Saliva samples collected in a community settingTo the best of our knowledge, as of this date, only one study has evaluated the clinical performance of saliva samples for COVID-19 testing in the community setting. Becker et al. demonstrated a reduced sensitivity of saliva compared with NPS samples in the community setting [13]. The percentage of samples that were positive in NPS (negative in matched saliva) varied from 13 to 20.8%, whereas only 4% were positive in the saliva sample (negative in matched NPS) employing three RT-PCR methods. Further, in a cohort of 88 patients, the one-sided test demonstrated a 30% reduced sensitivity of saliva compared with NPS samples [13]. In addition, Guest et al. demonstrated that the quality of self-collected saliva samples is comparable to that of OPS samples by evaluating the housekeeping gene in these samples collected in the community setting.RecommendationsSaliva is a potentially useful sample type for COVID-19 testing, and initial reports have elicited global interest given the impact that a simple collection method could have in this pandemic. The initial trends highlight that saliva is definitely a viable sample type in the healthcare setting, but the same conclusion cannot be drawn for samples collected in a community setting. This observation may point us to approaches that could reduce the variability and errors seen when using saliva – namely, standardized precollection and collection procedures and clear instructions for oral preparation to patients, prior to collection. Use of standard NPS handling protocol is currently widespread; however, the same is not true of saliva. Review and optimization of previously published protocols on saliva collection and handling, while accommodating various clinical scenarios, lifestyles and population dynamics, may aid in developing a viable saliva protocol for COVID-19 testing [22,23]. The saliva samples must be optimized for different collection devices, processing variables, storage temperature, transport and time to assay to determine best practices. Further investigations in a larger cohort are needed before saliva is deemed the specimen of choice for COVID-19 testing. In addition, future studies in a large cohort should aim to compare saliva samples collected in both healthcare and community settings. This would minimize any protocol, statistical and regional biases and enable more accurate and complete assessment of the clinical utility of saliva samples.ConclusionPublished studies demonstrate the significant practical advantages and clinical utility of saliva samples in a healthcare setting compared with NPS samples. The adoption of saliva as a specimen type can significantly reduce exposure risk to healthcare workers, reduce long waiting hours to sample collection and facilitate noninvasive self-collection from individuals. However, these studies have also highlighted the variable sensitivity of saliva samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing and clearly necessitate further investigation in larger cohorts. Well-defined sample collection protocols should help resolve some of the discrepancies reported in the literature but concordant results observed with multiple studies in healthcare setting endorse the clinical utility of saliva samples in healthcare setting. Resolution of specimen collection variability could result in implementation of saliva as the specimen of choice in a healthcare setting and would be a useful alternative to NPS samples during this COVID-19 pandemic.Financial & competing interests disclosureThe authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.References1. Wölfel R, Corman VM, Guggemos W et al. Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019. Nature. 581(7809), 465–469 (2020).MedlineGoogle Scholar2. Zou L, Ruan F, Huang M et al. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 382(12), 1177–1179 (2020).MedlineGoogle Scholar3. Wang W, Xu Y, Gao R et al. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in different types of clinical specimens. JAMA. 323(18), 1843–1844 (2020).Medline CASGoogle Scholar4. Corstjens PL, Abrams WR, Malamud D. Saliva and viral infections. Periodontol. 2000. 70(1), 93–110 (2016).MedlineGoogle Scholar5. Malamud D. The mouth: a gateway or a trap for HIV? AIDS. 24(1), 5 (2010).MedlineGoogle Scholar6. Miller CS, Berger JR, Mootoor Y et al. High prevalence of multiple human herpesviruses in saliva from human immunodeficiency virus-infected persons in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. J Clin Microbiol. 44(7), 2409–2415 (2006).Medline CASGoogle Scholar7. To K, Lu L, Yip CC et al. Additional molecular testing of saliva specimens improves the detection of respiratory viruses. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 6(6), e49 (2017).Medline CASGoogle Scholar8. Han P, Ivanovski S. Saliva – friend and foe in the COVID-19 outbreak. Diagnostics (Basel). 10(5), 290 (2020).CASGoogle Scholar9. Priya KY, Prathibha KM. Methods of collection of saliva-a review. Int. J. Oral Health Dent. 3(3), 149–153 (2017).Google Scholar10. Kim YG, Yun SG, Kim MY et al. Comparison between saliva and nasopharyngeal swab specimens for detection of respiratory viruses by multiplex reverse transcription-PCR. J. Clin. Microbiol. 55(1), 226–233 (2017).MedlineGoogle Scholar11. To KK, Yip CC, Lai CY et al. Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for testing respiratory virus by a point-of-care molecular assay: a diagnostic validity study. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 25(3), 372–8 (2019).Medline CASGoogle Scholar12. Robinson JL, Lee BE, Kothapalli S et al. Use of throat swab or saliva specimens for detection of respiratory viruses in children. Clin. Infect. Dis. 46(7), e61–e64 (2008).MedlineGoogle Scholar13. Becker D, Sandoval E, Amin A et al. Saliva is less sensitive than nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 detection in the community setting. medRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.11.20092338 (2020).Google Scholar14. To KK, Tsang OT, Yip CC et al. Consistent detection of 2019 novel coronavirus in saliva. Clin Infect Dis. 71(15), 841–843 (2020).Medline CASGoogle Scholar15. To KK, Tsang OT, Leung WS et al. Temporal profiles of viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples and serum antibody responses during infection by SARS-CoV-2: an observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 20(5), 565–574 (2020).Medline CASGoogle Scholar16. Azzi L, Carcano G, Gianfagna F et al. Saliva is a reliable tool to detect SARS-CoV-2. J Infect. 81(1), e45–e50 (2020).Medline CASGoogle Scholar17. Yoon JG, Yoon J, Song JY et al. Clinical significance of a high SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the saliva. J Korean Med Sci. 35(20), e195 (2020).Medline CASGoogle Scholar18. Wyllie AL, Fournier J, Casanovas-Massana A et al. Saliva is more sensitive for SARS-CoV-2 detection in COVID-19 patients than nasopharyngeal swabs. Medrxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.20067835 (2020).Google Scholar19. Chow FW, Chan TT, Tam AR et al. A rapid, simple, inexpensive, and mobile colorimetric assay COVID-19-LAMP for mass on-site screening of COVID-19. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21(15), 5380 (2020).CASGoogle Scholar20. Fukumoto T, Iwasaki S, Fujisawa S et al. Efficacy of a novel SARS-CoV-2 detection kit without RNA extraction and purification. Int. J. Infect. Dis. (98), 16–17 (2020).Medline CASGoogle Scholar21. Lai CK, Chen Z, Lui G et al. Prospective study comparing deep-throat saliva with other respiratory tract specimens in the diagnosis of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). J Infect Dis. jiaa487 (2020).Google Scholar22. Bhattarai KR, Kim HR, Chae HJ. Compliance with saliva collection protocol in healthy volunteers: strategies for managing risk and errors. Int. J. Med. Sci. 15(8), 823 (2018).Medline CASGoogle Scholar23. Sullivan R, Heavey S, Graham DG et al. An optimised saliva collection method to produce high-yield, high-quality RNA for translational research. PLOS One. 15(3), e0229791 (2020).Medline CASGoogle ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited BySelf-Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 from Saliva Samples at Home: Isothermal Amplification Enabled by Do-It-Yourself Portable Incubators and Laminated Poly-ethyl Sulfonate Membranes19 January 2024 | Diagnostics, Vol. 14, No. 2The Utility of Mechanical Homogenization in COVID-19 Diagnostic Workflows23 February 2022Establishment of primary health information in the COVID-19 outbreak: A cross-sectional study of population awareness of self-testingInformatics in Medicine Unlocked, Vol. 31Mouth Washing Impaired SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Saliva22 August 2021 | Diagnostics, Vol. 11, No. 8Are Posterior Oropharyngeal Saliva Specimens an Acceptable Alternative to Nasopharyngeal Sampling for the Monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 in Primary-Care Settings?26 April 2021 | Viruses, Vol. 13, No. 5 Vol. 13, No. 1 STAY CONNECTED Metrics History Received 29 July 2020 Accepted 2 November 2020 Published online 24 November 2020 Published in print January 2021 Information© 2020 Newlands PressKeywordscommunityCOVID-19diagnosticshealthcarePCR testsalivaFinancial & competing interests disclosureThe authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.PDF download