Deep throat saliva as an alternative diagnostic specimen type for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are widely accepted as specimens for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019. However, the collection procedures for NPS specimens causes sneezing and coughing in most patients, which generate droplets or aerosol particles that are hazardous to the healthcare workers collecting these specimens. In this study, 95 patient-matched paired deep throat saliva (DTS) and NPS specimens from 62 patients were analyzed. Samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The rates of detection for DTS (53.7%) and NPS (47.4%) samples were comparable (P = .13). It is important to note that the patients should be clearly instructed or supervised during DTS collection. In conclusion, SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-PCR was equivalent in DTS and NPS specimens.

Diagnosis of SARS-Cov-2 Infection by RT-PCR Using Specimens Other Than Naso- and Oropharyngeal Swabs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The rapid and accurate testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection is still crucial to mitigate, and eventually halt, the spread of this disease. Currently, nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) are the recommended standard sampling techniques, yet, these have some limitations such as the complexity of collection. Hence, several other types of specimens that are easier to obtain are being tested as alternatives to nasal/throat swabs in nucleic acid assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This study aims to critically appraise and compare the clinical performance of RT-PCR tests using oral saliva, deep-throat saliva/posterior oropharyngeal saliva (DTS/POS), sputum, urine, feces, and tears/conjunctival swab (CS) against standard specimens (NPS, OPS, or a combination of both). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov and NIPH Clinical Trial) were searched up to the 30th of December, 2020. Case-control and cohort studies on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS 2). We identified 1560 entries, 33 of which (1.1%) met all required criteria and were included for the quantitative data analysis. Saliva presented the higher accuracy, 92.1% (95% CI: 70.0-98.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 83.9% (95% CI: 77.4-88.8) and specificity of 96.4% (95% CI: 89.5-98.8). DTS/POS samples had an overall accuracy of 79.7% (95% CI: 43.3-95.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 90.1% (95% CI: 83.3-96.9) and specificity of 63.1% (95% CI: 36.8-89.3). The remaining index specimens could not be adequately assessed given the lack of studies available. Our meta-analysis shows that saliva samples from the oral region provide a high sensitivity and specificity; therefore, these appear to be the best candidates for alternative specimens to NPS/OPS in SARS-CoV-2 detection, with suitable protocols for swab-free sample collection to be determined and validated in the future. The distinction between oral and extra-oral salivary samples will be crucial, since DTS/POS samples may induce a higher rate of false positives. Urine, feces, tears/CS and sputum seem unreliable for diagnosis. Saliva testing may increase testing capacity, ultimately promoting the implementation of truly deployable COVID-19 tests, which could either work at the point-of-care (e.g. hospitals, clinics) or at outbreak control spots (e.g., schools, airports, and nursing homes).

Evaluation on testing of deep throat saliva and lower respiratory tract specimens with Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay.

BACKGROUND: Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay is only validated on nasopharyngeal specimens for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Other specimen types such as deep throat saliva (DTS), also known as posterior oropharyngeal saliva and lower-respiratorytract specimens (LRT) including sputum, tracheal aspirate and bronchoalveolar lavage are not validated. These non-validated specimen types, however, do have significant diagnostic value. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the performance of Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 from DTS and LRT specimens. METHODS: 162 specimens from 158 patients with suspected COVID-19 disease were tested with Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay. These included 120 DTS and 42 LRT specimens i.e. 35 sputum, 6 tracheal aspirate and one bronchoalveolar lavage. Results were compared to those by the TIB-Molbiol LightMix® SarbecoV E-gene assay. RESULTS: Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay has satisfactory performance when compared with reference method. The positive percent agreement (PPA) of DTS and LRT specimens were 98.86 % & 100 % respectively while the negative percent agreement (NPA) was 100 % for both DTS and LRT specimens. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated with appropriate sample pre-treatment, Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay can be used to test on non-validated specimen types including DTS & LRT specimens.