ABSTRACT
Testing efforts for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been burdened by the scarcity of testing materials and personal protective equipment for health care workers. The simple and painless process of saliva collection allows for widespread testing, but enthusiasm is hampered by variable performance compared to that of nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. We prospectively collected paired NPS and saliva samples from a total of 300 unique adult and pediatric patients. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 32.2% (97/300) of the individuals using the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo kit (Thermo Fisher). Performance of saliva and NPS was compared against the total number of positives regardless of specimen type. The overall concordances for saliva and NPS were 91.0% (273/300) and 94.7% (284/300), respectively. The values for positive percent agreement (PPA) for saliva and NPS were 81.4% (79/97) and 89.7% (87/97), respectively. Saliva yielded detection of 10 positive cases that were negative by NPS. For symptomatic and asymptomatic pediatric patients not previously diagnosed with COVID-19, the performances of saliva and NPS were comparable (PPA, 82.4% versus 85.3%). The overall values for PPA for adults were 83.3% and 90.7% for saliva and NPS, respectively, with saliva yielding detection of 4 fewer cases than NPS. However, saliva performance for symptomatic adults was identical to NPS performance (PPA of 93.8%). With lower cost and self-collection capabilities, saliva can be an appropriate sample choice alternative to NPS for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Saliva/virology , Specimen Handling/methods , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/pathology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharynx/virology , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity , Viral Load , Young AdultABSTRACT
Testing efforts for SARS-CoV-2 have been burdened by the scarcity of testing materials and personal protective equipment for healthcare workers. The simple and painless process of saliva collection allows for widespread testing, but enthusiasm is hampered by variable performance compared to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. We prospectively collected paired NPS and saliva samples from a total of 300 unique adult and pediatric patients. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 32.2% (97/300) of the individuals using the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit (Thermo Fisher). Performance of saliva and NPS were compared against the total number of positives regardless of specimen type. The overall concordance for saliva and NPS was 91.0% (273/300) and 94.7% (284/300), respectively. The positive percent agreement (PPA) for saliva and NPS was 81.4% (79/97) and 89.7% (87/97), respectively. Saliva detected 10 positive cases that were negative by NPS. In symptomatic and asymptomatic pediatric patients not previously diagnosed with COVID-19, the performances of saliva and NPS were comparable (PPA: 82.4% vs 85.3%). The overall PPA for adults were 83.3% and 90.7% for saliva and NPS, respectively, with saliva detecting 4 cases less than NPS. However, saliva performance in symptomatic adults was identical to NPS (PPA of 93.8%). With lower cost and self-collection capabilities, saliva can be an appropriate alternative sample choice to NPS for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults. SUMMARY: Saliva is an acceptable alternative specimen compared to nasopharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Specifically, saliva demonstrated comparable performance to nasopharyngeal swabs in symptomatic and asymptomatic pediatric patients and in symptomatic adults.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Human parechoviruses (hPeV) are increasingly recognized as significant etiological agents for meningoencephalitis especially in young children, but testing of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) for hPeV by PCR is not routinely performed. METHODS: We used real-time reverse transcriptase PCR for detection of serotypes 1-6 in CSF samples of 440 children who underwent a lumbar puncture to exclude an infectious etiology of their clinical presentation. We then compared the prevalence and clinical presentation of children with hPeV-positive CSF with that of children with enterovirus (EV)-positive CSF. RESULTS: HPeV was detected in 2.7% and EV in 10.7% of CSF samples. Many hPeV-positive patients were <3 months of age and usually had CSF parameters within the age-adjusted normal range. However, children with hPeV-positive CSF presented with neurologic symptoms more frequently than those with EV-positive CSF. CONCLUSIONS: HPeV infections of the central nervous system occurred mainly in young infants and were more commonly associated with neurologic symptoms at presentation, despite the fact that CSF findings were within the normal range in the vast majority of these cases. HPeV should be included in the differential diagnosis of young children with central nervous system symptoms and sepsis-like illness, even in the presence of normal CSF parameters.
