Evaluation of different respiratory samples and saliva for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA

Sarınoğlu, Rabia Can; Deniz, Guneser; Şengel, Buket Ertürk; Korten, Volkan; Yağcı, Ayşegül

doi:10.5472/marumj.866658

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reason for negative results is the sensitivity of saliva samples. In a study using the same kit as ours, SARS-CoV-2 RNA positivity in the saliva samples of COVID-19 patients was found at the level of 60%, 39 and it was 70% in another study performed with a different kit. 40 The fact that 80% of the samples were positive in our study shows that the sample quality was good.…”

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 47%

Effect of oral antiseptics on the viral load of SARS-CoV-2: A randomized controlled trial

Gül¹,

Dilsiz²,

Sağlık³

et al. 2022

Dent. Med. Probl.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. In the oral cavity, which plays an important role in the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), it is possible to reduce the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 with antiseptics, thereby minimizing the transmission of the virus during dental procedures.Objectives. The aim of this study was to clinically evaluate the effect of the hypochlorous acid (HClO) and povidone-iodine (PVP-I) solutions on the oral viral load of SARS-CoV-2.Material and methods. This randomized controlled trial was conducted on 75 patients hospitalized in the COVID-19 ward of a local hospital. All the patients included in the study were within the first 24 h of hospitalization and the first 5 days of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms. The viral load of mouthwash samples was measured with the cycle threshold (Ct) value of SARS-CoV-2 through a realtime reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The patients were divided into 3 groups. The effect on the patient's SARS-CoV-2 viral load was investigated after gargling the mouths and throats for 30 s with HClO, PVP-I and isotonic saline. First, a sample was taken after gargling with isotonic saline, then another sample was taken after gargling for 30 s with a particular antiseptic to determine the viral load of SARS-CoV-2. Results.Comparing the before and after mouthwash samples from all 3 groups, there were no statistically significant differences in the Ct values before and after gargling (p > 0.05). However, there were statistically significant differences in the number of negative samples after the use of HClO and PVP-I, which were positive before gargling (p < 0.05). Conclusions.In the light of the data obtained in this study, there is insufficient evidence that gargling with HClO or PVP-I reduces viral load. Taken together, these findings imply no role for antiseptics in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by the aerosol generated during dental procedures, or more generally, SARS-CoV-2 infection control.

show abstract

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 47%

Effect of oral antiseptics on the viral load of SARS-CoV-2: A randomized controlled trial

Gül¹,

Dilsiz²,

Sağlık³

et al. 2022

Dent. Med. Probl.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A few studies collect samples in RNA-stabilizing buffers, 16-19 but most collect dry-swabs or saliva in sterile collection vessels. 15,20-31 Without an RNA-stabilizing buffer, there is some risk of viral degradation during transport and handling. Moreover, most studies do not report quantitative analysis of viral loads, making it more difficult to interpret the observed results relative to the LOD values of the particular test used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 viral-load curves in paired saliva and nasal swabs inform appropriate respiratory sampling site and analytical test sensitivity required for earliest viral detection

Savela

Winnett

Romano

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is critical to reduce asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic spread of COVID-19, curb the spread of viral variants by travelers, and maximize efficacy of therapeutic treatments. We designed a study to evaluate the preferred test sensitivity and sample type (saliva and nasal swab) for detecting early infections of COVID-19. We performed a case-ascertained study to monitor household contacts of individuals recently diagnosed with a SARS-CoV-2 infection. From those individuals, we obtained twice-daily self-collected anterior-nares nasal swabs and saliva samples and quantified SARS-CoV-2 RNA viral loads in those samples using high-sensitivity RT-qPCR and RT-ddPCR assays. We found that SARS-CoV-2 RNA first appears in saliva and then in nasal-swab samples. A high-sensitivity (limit of detection of ~103 copies/mL) RNA test detected SARS-CoV-2 virus in saliva 1.5 to 4.5 days before the viral load in the paired nasal-swab samples exceeded the limit of detection of low-sensitivity tests. It was possible to observe a high (>107-108 copies/mL) viral load in saliva samples while the paired nasal swab was either negative or had low (~103 copies/mL) viral load. Our results indicate that both sampling site and test sensitivity must be considered to ensure early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection: high-sensitivity tests that use saliva can detect SARS-CoV-2 infection days earlier than low-sensitivity tests that use nasal swabs. Furthermore, early in the infection, low-sensitivity tests that use nasal swabs may miss SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals with very high and potentially infectious viral loads in saliva.

show abstract

“…Considering only the pure (not induced or enhanced) saliva without the use of transport media to achieve the aim of this SS collection method, there are only four studies to compare. Three studies showed moderate [44] to strong [35], [36] agreement with one study showed weak [45] agreement. Note that from these four studies, only one study [35] included asymptomatic cases and still showed strong agreement.…”

Section: Diagnostic Agreement Comparison Between Ss and Tssmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…All studies were comparing the diagnostic value of SS SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results with any forms of TSS (NPS, OPS, and/or NOS). Several studies were also comparing SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results from other respiratory tract specimens such as tracheal aspirate and sputum [45], cerumen and tears [34], and nasal swabs [47], [48] in additions to SS.…”

Section: Participants and Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of salivary specimen for COVID-19 detection using RT-PCR assay: a systematic review

Budiyatno

Wibowo

Riwu

2022

IJPHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases arose globally, active case finding by performing throat swab test proposed high risk for the healthcare workers. Saliva had recently been reported to show positive detection means for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and proposed advantages of self-collection, less requirement of transport media, and reduced nosocomial transmission risk. However, support evidence regarding its diagnostic value was still lacking and varied widely in specimen collection method. This systematic review aimed to assess the diagnostic value of salivary specimens (SS) for COVID-19 detection using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay compared with throat swab specimens (TSS), while putting into consideration confounders such as patients’ initial condition, specimen collection method, and transport media used. Six databases were used for identifying relevant studies. Final search yielded 19 eligible studies which was reviewed based on the major outcome: diagnostic agreement, sensitivity & specificity, and viral load comparison. The use of SS as an alternative to TSS showed to be promising although specimen collection method needed to be standardized. SS was comparable to TSS in detecting COVID-19 using RT-PCR assay, especially in symptomatic or confirmed cases. More Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were still needed to clearly demonstrate the ability of SS to capture asymptomatic cases in the setting of mass surveillance, where patients would self-collect the specimen at ease.

show abstract

Evaluation of different respiratory samples and saliva for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA

Cited by 6 publications

References 22 publications

Effect of oral antiseptics on the viral load of SARS-CoV-2: A randomized controlled trial

Effect of oral antiseptics on the viral load of SARS-CoV-2: A randomized controlled trial

Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 viral-load curves in paired saliva and nasal swabs inform appropriate respiratory sampling site and analytical test sensitivity required for earliest viral detection

The use of salivary specimen for COVID-19 detection using RT-PCR assay: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About