Alternative SARS-CoV-2 detection protocol from self-collected saliva for mass diagnosis and epidemiological studies in low-incoming regions

Oliveira, Luana Prado Rolim de; Cabral, Aline Diniz; Carmo, Andréia Moreira dos Santos; Duran, Adriana Feliciano Alves; Fermino, Diego Marin; Veiga, Glaucia Raquel Luciano; Alves, Beatriz da Costa Aguiar; Santana, Carla Moreira; Garcia, Felipe Baena; Santos, Edmar Silva; Jordão, Felipe Trovalim; Siqueira, Andressa Moreira; Campos, Ivana Barros de; Colpas, Daniela Rodrigues; Almeida, Fernanda Nascimento; Fonseca, Fernando Luiz Affonso; Sperança, Márcia Aparecida

doi:10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114382

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The extraction of nucleic acids was performed according to the protocol developed by our research group with a TRIZOL-type reagent prepared with reagents obtained from the national market [21]. The diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 was carried out according to a protocol developed by our research group and has been used in the monitoring of the virus in the UFABC community since May 2021.…”

Section: Diagnosis Of Sars-cov-2 and Disclosure Of Positive Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have pointed to the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva [8,10,21], making it possible to use it as a sample for RTqPCR. Systematic reviews have indicated that this type of material presents similar accuracy to nasal and oropharyngeal secretions [15,21], with the advantage that its collection does not require the presence of health professionals (cheapening, simplifying, and reducing risks during collection) and is less invasive and more comfortable [10,22], thus increasing the likelihood of people joining mass testing [14]. These facilities have led several testing programs that started with the collection of nasal and oropharyngeal secretions to adhere to the use of saliva in their samples [12,17,22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An alternative for obtaining biological samples to use the gold standard diagnostic method for detecting SARS-CoV-2 was developed by our research group using selfcollected saliva on dry cotton with a 0.5 cm diameter and transported in temperature environment in blood collection tubes without additives, wrapped with 70% ethanol tissue and a transport system with seal-type envelopes containing a label with the information of the individuals [21]. This system was successfully used to monitor SARS-CoV-2 in the community of Universidade Federal do ABC (UFABC).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

WhatsApp as a humanized communication tool during SARS-CoV-2 monitoring

Andretta,

Silva Santos,

Luiza Santos Damasceno

et al. 2024

Epidemic Preparedness and Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Universities studied safe ways to return to activities, which pointed out that the effective biosecurity measures were the use of masks, social distancing, personal hygiene, and monitoring programs by testing and isolation of contaminated individuals. Not only monitoring and testing itself but also the entire community orientation process is essential for the successful mitigation of SARS-CoV-2 infections. The aim of this study was the development of communication tools for monitoring SARS-CoV-2 by testing a Brazilian University community, during the gradual return to face-to-face activities, from May 2021 to December 2022. The tests were performed by RTqPCR, in a laboratory with biosafety level 2, using saliva samples self-collected, on dry cotton, in a dry collection tube, wrapped in a 70% isopropyl alcohol wipe, transported in an envelope with individual epidemiological and symptoms data, and maintained at room temperature until analysis. The results were delivered by a health professional by email and WhatsApp which was a humanized channel constituted to receive doubts and anxieties, as well as contact and guidance regarding the biosafety protocols adopted at the university, and health issues in general, which subsidized the monitoring by providing a rich and detailed collection of data.

show abstract

Section: Diagnosis Of Sars-cov-2 and Disclosure Of Positive Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

WhatsApp as a humanized communication tool during SARS-CoV-2 monitoring

Andretta,

Silva Santos,

Luiza Santos Damasceno

et al. 2024

Epidemic Preparedness and Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Large-scale diagnostic capacity in lower- and middle-income countries is impeded by the scarcity of biosafety-equipped laboratories to handle samples; the high costs of test materials; the lack of specialized technicians to perform polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays; and the shortage of trained health professionals to collect nasopharyngeal swab samples. 6 Low- and middle-income countries also face persistent inequitable access to COVID-19 vaccines – a situation that has been described as vaccine apartheid. 7 By August 2022, almost 80% of adults in high-income nations had received at least one dose of vaccine.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Saliva-based methods for SARS-CoV-2 testing in low- and middle-income countries

Tan¹,

Allicock²,

Katamba³

et al. 2022

Bull World Health Org

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to disproportionately affect low- and middle-income countries, the need for simple, accessible and frequent diagnostic testing grows. In lower-resource settings, case detection is often limited by a lack of available testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). To address global inequities in testing, alternative sample types could be used to increase access to testing by reducing the associated costs. Saliva is a sensitive, minimally invasive and inexpensive diagnostic sample for SARS-CoV-2 detection that is appropriate for asymptomatic surveillance, symptomatic testing and at-home collection. Saliva testing can lessen two major challenges faced by lower- and middle-income countries: constrained resources and overburdened health workers. Saliva sampling enables convenient self-collection and requires fewer resources than swab-based methods. However, saliva testing for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics has not been implemented on a large scale in low- and middle-income countries. While numerous studies based in these settings have demonstrated the usefulness of saliva sampling, there has been insufficient attention on optimizing its implementation in practice. We argue that implementation science research is needed to bridge this gap between evidence and practice. Low- and middle-income countries face many barriers as they continue their efforts to provide mass COVID-19 testing in the face of substantial inequities in global access to vaccines. Laboratories should look to replicate successful approaches for sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva, while governments should act to facilitate mass testing by lifting restrictions that limit implementation of saliva-based methods.

show abstract

The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection

Davenport,

Arevalo-Rodriguez,

Mateos-Haro

et al. 2024

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Sample collection is a key driver of accuracy in the diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Viral load may vary at different anatomical sampling sites and accuracy may be compromised by difficulties obtaining specimens and the expertise of the person taking the sample. It is important to optimise sampling accuracy within cost, safety and accessibility constraints. Objectives To compare the sensitivity of different sampling collection sites and methods for the detection of current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection with any molecular or antigen‐based test. Search methods Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 22 February 2022. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions. Selection criteria We included studies of symptomatic or asymptomatic people with suspected SARS‐CoV‐2 infection undergoing testing. We included studies of any design that compared results from different sample types (anatomical location, operator, collection device) collected from the same participant within a 24‐hour period. Data collection and analysis Within a sample pair, we defined a reference sample and an index sample collected from the same participant within the same clinical encounter (within 24 hours). Where the sample comparison was different anatomical sites, the reference standard was defined as a nasopharyngeal or combined naso/oropharyngeal sample collected into the same sample container and the index sample as the alternative anatomical site. Where the sample comparison was concerned with differences in the sample collection method from the same site, we defined the reference sample as that closest to standard practice for that sample type. Where the sample pair comparison was concerned with differences in personnel collecting the sample, the more skilled or experienced operator was considered the reference sample. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS‐2 and QUADAS‐C checklists, tailored to this review. We present estimates of the difference in the sensitivity (reference sample (%) minus index sample sensitivity (%)) in a pair and as an average across studies for each index sampling method using forest plots and tables. We examined heterogeneity between studies according to population (age, symptom status) and index sample (time post‐symptom onset, operator expertise, use of transport medium) characteristics. Main results This review includes 106 studies reporting 154 evaluations and 60,523 sample pair comparisons, of which 11,045 had SARS‐CoV‐2 infection....

show abstract

Alternative SARS-CoV-2 detection protocol from self-collected saliva for mass diagnosis and epidemiological studies in low-incoming regions

Cited by 3 publications

References 32 publications

WhatsApp as a humanized communication tool during SARS-CoV-2 monitoring

WhatsApp as a humanized communication tool during SARS-CoV-2 monitoring

Saliva-based methods for SARS-CoV-2 testing in low- and middle-income countries

The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About