New insights into SARS-CoV-2 Lumipulse G salivary antigen testing: accuracy, safety and short TAT enhance surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: The rapid, accurate and safe detection of SARS-CoV-2 is the key to improving surveillance and infection containment. The aim of the present study was to ascertain whether, after heat/chemical inactivation, SARS-CoV-2 N antigen chemiluminescence (CLEIA) assay in saliva remains a valid alternative to molecular testing. METHODS: In 2022, 139 COVID-19 inpatients and 467 healthcare workers were enrolled. In 606 self-collected saliva samples (Salivette), SARS-CoV-2 was detected by molecular (TaqPath rRT-PCR) and chemiluminescent Ag assays (Lumipulse G). The effect of sample pre-treatment (extraction solution-ES or heating) on antigen recovery was verified. RESULTS: Salivary SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay was highly accurate (AUC=0.959, 95% CI: 0.943-0.974), with 90% sensitivity and 92% specificity. Of the 254 antigen positive samples, 29 were false positives. We demonstrated that heterophilic antibodies could be a cause of false positive results. A significant antigen concentration decrease was observed after ES treatment (p=0.0026), with misclassification of 43 samples. Heat had a minimal impact, after treatment the correct classification of cases was maintained. CONCLUSIONS: CLEIA SARS-CoV-2 salivary antigen provides accurate, timely and high-throughput results that remain accurate also after heat inactivation, thus ensuring a safer work environment. This supports the use of salivary antigen detection by CLEIA in surveillance programs.

Salivary proteomic analysis in asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection: Innate immunity, taste perception and FABP5 proteins make the difference.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: SARS-CoV-2 infection spawns from an asymptomatic condition to a fatal disease. Age, comorbidities, and several blood biomarkers are associated with infection outcome. We searched for biomarkers by untargeted and targeted proteomic analysis of saliva, a source of viral particles and host proteins. METHODS: Saliva samples from 19 asymptomatic and 16 symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects, and 20 controls were analyzed by LC-MS/MS for untargeted peptidomic (flow through of 10 kDa filter) and proteomic (trypsin digestion of filter retained proteins) profiling. RESULTS: Peptides from 53 salivary proteins were identified. ADF was detected only in controls, while IL1RA only in infected subjects. PRPs, DSC2, FABP5, his-1, IL1RA, PRH1, STATH, SMR3B, ANXA1, MUC7, ACTN4, IGKV1-33 and TGM3 were significantly different between asymptomatic and symptomatic subjects. Retained proteins were 117, being 11 highly different between asymptomatic and symptomatic (fold change ≥2 or ≤-2). After validation by LC-MS/MS-SRM (selected reaction monitoring analysis), the most significant discriminant proteins at PCA were IL1RA, CYSTB, S100A8, S100A9, CA6, and FABP5. CONCLUSIONS: The differentially abundant proteins involved in innate immunity (S100 proteins), taste (CA6 and cystatins), and viral binding to the host (FABP5), appear to be of interest for use as potential biomarkers and drugs targets.

Salivary SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid detection: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: SARS-CoV-2 quick testing is relevant for the containment of new pandemic waves. Antigen testing in self-collected saliva might be useful. We compared salivary and naso-pharyngeal swab (NPS) SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection by a rapid chemiluminescent assay (CLEIA) and two different point-of-care (POC) immunochromatographic assays, with results of molecular testing. METHODS: 234 patients were prospectively enrolled. Paired self-collected saliva (Salivette) and NPS were obtained to perform rRT-PCR, chemiluminescent (Lumipulse G) and POC (NPS: Fujirebio and Abbott; saliva: Fujirebio) for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection. RESULTS: The overall agreement between NPS and saliva rRT-PCR was 78.7%, reaching 91.7% at the first week from symptoms. SARS-CoV-2 CLEIA antigen was highly accurate in distinguishing positive and negative NPS (ROC-AUC = 0.939, 95%CI:0.903-0.977), with 81.6% sensitivity and 93.8% specificity. This assay on saliva reached the optimal value within 7 days from symptoms onset (Sensitivity: 72%; Specificity: 97%). Saliva POC antigen was limited in sensitivity (13%), performing better in NPS (Sensitivity: 48% and 66%; Specificity: 100% and 99% for Espline and Abbott respectively), depending on viral loads. CONCLUSIONS: Self-collected saliva is a valid alternative to NPS for SARS-CoV-2 detection by molecular, but also by CLEIA antigen testing, which is therefore potentially useful for large scale screening.