4.3 Article

Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/20002297.2021.1920226

关键词

Saliva; COVID-19 diagnosis; coronavirus; SARS-CoV-2

资金

  1. French Defence Innovation Agency - Agence de l'innovation de defense (AID) [2020-COVID19-15]
  2. French General Armament Directorate Direction Generale de l'Armement (DGA, MoSIS project) [PDH-2-NRBC-2-B-2113]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the efficacy of Salivettes (R) as a standardized saliva collector and found that saliva samples have higher sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections compared to nasopharyngeal swabs, especially for mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic individuals.
Background: The gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis relies on quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain reaction (RT-qPCR) from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens, but NPSs present several limitations. The simplicity, low invasive and possibility of self-collection of saliva imposed these specimens as a relevant alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection. However, the discrepancy of saliva test results compared to NPSs made of its use controversial. Here, we assessed Salivettes (R), as a standardized saliva collection device, and compared SARS-CoV-2 positivity on paired NPS and saliva specimens. Methods: A total of 303 individuals randomly selected among those investigated for SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled, including 30 (9.9%) patients previously positively tested using NPS (follow-up group), 90 (29.7%) mildly symptomatic and 183 (60.4%) asymptomatic. Results: The RT-qPCR revealed a positive rate of 11.6% (n = 35) and 17.2% (n = 52) for NPSs and saliva samples, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of saliva samples were 82.9% and 91.4%, respectively, using NPS as reference. The highest proportion of discordant results concerned the follow-up group (33.3%). Although the agreement exceeded 90.0% in the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups, 17 individuals were detected positive only in saliva samples, with consistent medical arguments. Conclusion Saliva collected with Salivette (R) was more sensitive for detecting symptomatic and pre-symptomatic infections.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据