Saliva is superior over nasopharyngeal swab for detecting SARS-CoV2 in COVID-19 patients.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 11 2021
22 11 2021
Historique:
received:
16
04
2021
accepted:
09
11
2021
entrez:
23
11
2021
pubmed:
24
11
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Scaling up of diagnostic capacity is needed to mitigate the global pandemic of SARS-CoV2. However, there are challenges including shortage of sample collection swabs and transport medium. Saliva has been recommended as a simple, low-cost, non-invasive option. However, data from different populations and settings are limited. Here, we showed that saliva could be a good alternative sample to diagnose COVID-19 patients. Pair of NPS-saliva samples was collected from 152 symptomatic; confirmed COVID-19 patients, and compared their positivity rate, viral load, and duration of viral shedding. From 152 patients, 80 (52.63%) tested positive and 72 (47.37%) were negative for SARSA-CoV2 in NPS sample. In saliva, 129 (92.14%) were tested positive and 11 (7.86%) were negative on the day of admission to hospital. The overall percent agreement of RT-PCR result of Saliva to NPS was 70% (196/280). A comparison of viral load from 72 NPS-saliva pair samples on day of admission shows saliva contains significantly higher viral load (P < 0.001). In conclusion, saliva has higher yield in detecting SARS-CoV2, and COVID-19 patients show higher viral load and prolonged period of viral shedding in saliva. Therefore, we recommend saliva as a better alternative sample to NPS to diagnose COVID-19 patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34811429
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-02097-2
pii: 10.1038/s41598-021-02097-2
pmc: PMC8608806
doi:
Substances chimiques
RNA, Viral
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
22640Subventions
Organisme : FIC NIH HHS
ID : D43 TW009127
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
J Clin Med. 2020 May 15;9(5):
pubmed: 32429101
J Infect. 2020 Sep;81(3):e48-e50
pubmed: 32593658
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Aug;26(8):1834-1838
pubmed: 32383638
Lancet. 2013 Jun 1;381(9881):1916-25
pubmed: 23623390
J Clin Microbiol. 2016 Dec 28;55(1):226-233
pubmed: 27807150
Pathogens. 2020 Mar 04;9(3):
pubmed: 32143502
Emerg Microbes Infect. 2017 Jun 7;6(6):e49
pubmed: 28588283
J Infect. 2020 Jul;81(1):e45-e50
pubmed: 32298676
Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Aug;57(4):e22-e121
pubmed: 23845951
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 26;17(7):
pubmed: 32224986
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012 Apr;25(2):223-63
pubmed: 22491771
Int J Oral Sci. 2020 Feb 24;12(1):8
pubmed: 32094336
JAMA. 2020 Mar 17;323(11):1061-1069
pubmed: 32031570
J Dent Sci. 2020 Sep;15(3):364-366
pubmed: 32328218
Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):2571-2577
pubmed: 33196399
Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Dec;511:177-180
pubmed: 33068630
J Med Virol. 2014 Dec;86(12):2122-7
pubmed: 24797344
Acta Biomed. 2020 Mar 19;91(1):157-160
pubmed: 32191675
Cell Prolif. 2020 Dec;53(12):e12923
pubmed: 33073910
Lancet. 2011 Apr 9;377(9773):1264-75
pubmed: 21435708