Multiplatform assessment of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection in symptomatic healthcare personnel and patients presenting to the emergency department

Background Saliva has garnered great interest as an alternative specimen type for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2. Data are limited on the relative performance of different molecular methods using saliva specimens and the relative sensitivity of saliva to NP swabs. Methods To address the gap in knowledge, we enrolled symptomatic healthcare personnel (n = 250) from Barnes-Jewish Hospital/Washington University Medical Center and patients presenting to the Emergency Department with clinical symptoms compatible with COVID-19 (n = 292). We collected paired saliva specimens and NP swabs. The Lyra SARS-CoV-2 assay (Quidel, San Diego, CA) was evaluated on paired saliva and NP samples. Subsequently we compared the Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit (Diasorin, Cypress, CA) and a modified SalivaDirect (Yale) assay on a subset of positive and negative saliva specimens. Results The positive percent agreement between saliva and NP samples using the Lyra SARS-CoV-2 assay was 63.2%. Saliva samples had higher SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold values compared to NP swabs (p < 0.0001). We found a 76.47% (26/34) positive percent agreement for Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit on saliva and a 67.6% (23/34) positive percent agreement for SalivaDirect compared to NP swab results. Conclusion These data demonstrate molecular assays have variability in performance for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.

Self-collected gargle specimen as a patient-friendly sample collection method for COVID-19 diagnosis in a population context

Scaling up SARS-CoV-2 testing and tracing continues to be plagued with the limitation of the sample collection method, which requires trained healthcare workers to perform and causes discomfort to the patients. In response, we assessed the performance and user preference of gargle specimens for qRT-PCR-based detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Indonesia. Inpatients who had recently been diagnosed with COVID-19 and outpatients who were about to perform qRT-PCR testing were asked to provide nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal (NPOP) swabs and self-collected gargle specimens. We demonstrated that self-collected gargle specimens can be an alternative specimen to detect SARS-CoV-2 and the viral RNA remained stable for 31 days at room temperature storage. The developed method was validated for use on multiple RNA extraction kits and commercially available COVID-19 RT-PCR kits. Our developed method achieved a sensitivity of 91.38% when compared to paired NPOP swab specimens (Ct < 35), with 97.10% of patients preferring the self-collected gargle method.

Validation of saliva sampling as an alternative to oro-nasopharyngeal swab for detection of SARS-CoV-2 using unextracted rRT-PCR with the Allplex 2019-nCoV assay

Introduction. The current severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has stressed the global supply chain for specialized equipment, including flocked swabs. Hypothesis. Saliva could be a potential alternative specimen source for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by reverse-transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR). Aim. To compare the detection efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva and oro-nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) specimens. Methodology. Patients recruited from hospital provided paired saliva and ONPS specimens. We performed manual or automated RT-PCR with prior proteinase K treatment without RNA extraction using the Seegene Allplex 2019 nCoV assay. Results. Of the 773 specimen pairs, 165 (21.3 %) had at least one positive sample. Additionally, 138 specimens tested positive by both sampling methods. Fifteen and 12 cases were detected only by nasopharyngeal swab and saliva, respectively. The sensitivity of ONPS (153/165; 92.7 %; 95 % CI: 88.8–96.7) was similar to that of saliva (150/165; 90.9 %; 95 % CI: 86.5–95.3; P=0.5). In patients with symptoms for ≤ 10 days, the sensitivity of ONPS (118/126; 93.7 %; 95 % CI: 89.4–97.9) was similar to that of saliva (122/126; 96.8 %; 95 % CI: 93.8–99.9 %; P=0.9). However, the sensitivity of ONPS (20/22; 95.2 %; 95 % CI: 86.1–100) was higher than that of saliva (16/22; 71.4 %; 95 % CI: 52.1–90.8) in patients with symptoms for more than 10 days. Conclusions. Saliva sampling is an acceptable alternative to ONPS for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection in symptomatic individuals displaying symptoms for ≤ 10 days. These results reinforce the need to expand the use of saliva samples, which are self-collected and do not require swabs.

Self-collected gargle specimen as a patient-friendly sample collection method for COVID-19 diagnosis in a population context

Scaling up SARS-CoV-2 testing and tracing continues to be plagued with the limitation of the sample collection method, which requires trained healthcare workers to perform and causes discomfort to the patients. In response, we assessed the performance and user preference of gargle specimens for qRT-PCR-based detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Indonesia. Inpatients who had recently been diagnosed with COVID-19 and outpatients who were about to perform qRT-PCR testing were asked to provide nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal (NPOP) swabs and self-collected gargle specimens. We demonstrated that self-collected gargle specimens can be an alternative specimen to detect SARS-CoV-2 and the viral RNA remained stable for 31 days at room temperature storage. The developed method was validated for use on multiple RNA extraction kits and commercially available COVID-19 RT-PCR kits. Our developed method achieved a sensitivity of 91.38% when compared to paired NPOP swab specimens (Ct < 35), with 97.10% of patients preferring the self-collected gargle method.

Self-collected gargle as a patient-friendly sample collection method for COVID-19 diagnosis in population context

Scaling up SARS-CoV-2 testing and tracing continues to be plagued with limitation of sample collection method that requires trained healthcare workers to perform and cause discomfort to the patients. In response, we assessed the performance and user preference of gargle specimens for qRT-PCR based detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Indonesia. Inpatients who had recently been diagnosed with COVID-19 and outpatients who were about to perform qRT-PCR testing were asked to provide nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal (NPOP) swabs and self-collected gargle specimens. We demonstrated that self-collected gargle specimens can be an alternative specimen to detect SARS-CoV-2 and the viral RNA remained stable for 31 days on room temperature storage. The developed method was validated for use on multiple RNA extraction kit and commercially available COVID-19 RT-PCR kits. Our developed method achieved sensitivity of 91.38% when compared to paired NPOP swab specimens (Ct < 35) with 95.16% of patients prefer the self-collected gargle method.

Innovative bond strength testing of tin-based alloys for sliding bearings on steel supports

Since the bonding strength of Babbit alloys to their steel support cannot be measured with Chalmers specimens according to DIN ISO 4386, part 2, if the layer is too thin, an alternative specimen constellation was developed which enables the measurement of the bonding strength of layers as thin as 0.5 mm. The new specimen geometry consists of two coaxially aligned steel cylinders of equal diameter which leave a gap between opposite faces. After pretreatment in a metallic immersion bath of tin or an alloy of tin with 50 wt.-% zinc, the Babbit alloy is poured into the gap. Then the bonded steel cylinders are tensile tested. The force at fracture is divided by the cylinder cross-section yielding the bonding strength. This configuration is termed the face tensile specimen and was successfully tested on three different Babbit alloys. Up to a layer thickness of 1.5 mm the face tensile specimen delivers bonding strength quite comparable to those achieved with Chalmers specimens. Face tensile specimens require less Babbit alloy and are less costly to manufacture.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in gargle, spit and sputum specimens

The gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis is RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal specimen (NPS). Its collection involves a close contact between patients and healthcare workers requiring a significant amount of workforce and putting them at risk of infection. We evaluated self-collection of alternative specimens and compared their sensitivity and Ct values to NPS. We visited acute COVID-19 outpatients to collect concomitant nasopharyngeal and gargle specimens and had patients self-collect a gargle and either sputum or spit specimens on the next morning. We included 40 patients and collected 40 concomitant nasopharyngeal and gargle specimens, as well as 40 gargle, 22 spit and 16 sputum specimens on the next day, as 2 patients could not produce sputum. All specimens were as sensitive as NPS. Gargle specimens had a sensitivity of 0.97 (CI 95% 0.92-1,00), whether collected concomitantly to NPS or on the next morning. Next morning spit and sputum specimens showed a sensitivity of 1.00 CI (95% 1.00-1.00) and 0.94 (CI 95% 0.87-1.00), respectively. The gargle specimens had a significantly higher mean cycle threshold (Ct) values, 29.89 (SD 4.63) (p-value <0.001) and 29.25 (SD 3.99) (p-value <0.001) when collected concomitantly and on the next morning compared to NPS (22.07, SD 4.63). Ct value obtained with spit (23.51, SD 4.57, p-value 0.11) and sputum (25.82, SD 9.21, p-value 0.28) specimens were close to NPS. All alternative specimen collection methods were as sensitive as NPS, but spit collection appeared more promising, with a low Ct value and ease of collection. Our findings warrant further investigation.

Evaluation of specimen types and saliva stabilization solutions for SARS-CoV-2 testing

Identifying SARS-CoV-2 infections through aggressive diagnostic testing remains critical in tracking and curbing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Collection of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), the preferred sample type for SARS-CoV-2 detection, has become difficult due to the dramatic increase in testing and consequential supply strain. Therefore, alternative specimen types have been investigated, that provide similar detection sensitivity with reduced health care exposure and potential for self-collection. In this study, the detection sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 in nasal swabs (NS) and saliva was compared to that of NPS, using matched specimens from two outpatient cohorts in New York State (total n = 463). The first cohort showed only a 5.4% positivity but the second cohort (n=227) had a positivity rate of 41%, with sensitivity in NPS, NS and saliva of 97.9%, 87.1%, and 87.1%, respectively. Whether the reduced sensitivity of NS or saliva is acceptable must be assessed in the settings where they are used. However, we sought to improve on it by validating a method to mix the two sample types, as the combination of nasal swab and saliva resulted in 94.6% SARS-CoV-2 detection sensitivity. Spiking experiments showed that combining them did not adversely affect the detection sensitivity in either. Virus stability in saliva was also investigated, with and without the addition of commercially available stabilizing solutions. The virus was stable in saliva at both 4°C and room temperature for up to 7 days. The addition of stabilizing solutions did not enhance stability and in some situations reduced detectable virus levels.

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

Background: 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. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv (last retrieval October 1st, 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 sub-groups. The QUADAS 2 tool was used to assess bias. Results: 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: 73-90%), OP (84%, 95% CI: 57-100%), saliva (88%, 95% CI: 81 – 93%)] than NP swabs, while combined OP/NS matched NP performance (97%, 95% CI: 90-100%). Absence of RNA extraction (saliva) and utilization of a more sensitive NAAT (NS) substantially decreased alternative-specimen yield. Conclusions: 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 vs. adult, late vs. early in disease course) and head-to head studies of sampling strategies are urgently needed.