Academic Bibliography

 Search 200 years of publications by Ghent University researchers.
Advanced search
1 file | 550.31 KB
Add to list
  1. Search results
  2. Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of sal...

Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of saliva sampling methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reveals differential sensitivity and association with viral load

Pieter Mestdagh (UGent) , Michel Gillard, Sharonjit K. Dhillon, Jean-Paul Pirnay, Jeroen Poels, Jan Hellemans, Veronik Hutse, Celine Vermeiren, Maxime Boutier, Veerle De Wever, et al.
(2021) JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS. 23(10). p.1249-1258
Author
Organization
Abstract
Nasopharyngeal swabs are considered the preferential collection method for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostics. Less invasive and simpler alternative sampling procedures, such as saliva collection, are desirable. We compared saliva specimens and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs with respect to sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2. A nasopharyngeal and two saliva specimens (collected by spitting or oral swabbing) were obtained from >2500 individuals. All samples were tested by RT-qPCR, detecting RNA of SARS-CoV-2. The test sensitivity was compared on the two saliva collections with the nasopharyngeal specimen for all subjects and stratified by symptom status and viral load. Of the 2850 patients for whom all three samples were available, 105 were positive on NP swab, whereas 32 and 23 were also positive on saliva spitting and saliva swabbing samples, respectively. The sensitivity of the RT-qPCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 among NP-positive patients was 30.5% (95% CI, 1.9%-40.2%) for saliva spitting and 21.9% (95% CI, 14.4%-31.0%) for saliva swabbing. However, when focusing on subjects with medium to high viral load, sensitivity on saliva increased substantially: 93.9% (95% CI, 79.8%-99.3%) and 76.9% (95% CI, 56.4%-91.0%) for spitting and swabbing, respectively, regardless of symptomatic status. Our results suggest that saliva cannot readily replace nasopharyngeal sampling for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics but may enable identification of the most contagious cases with medium to high viral loads.
Keywords
Molecular Medicine, Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Downloads

  • Download
    Mestdagh-2021.pdf
    • full text (Accepted manuscript)
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 550.31 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Mestdagh, Pieter, et al. “Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy of Saliva Sampling Methods for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Reveals Differential Sensitivity and Association with Viral Load.” JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS, vol. 23, no. 10, 2021, pp. 1249–58, doi:10.1016/j.jmoldx.2021.07.017.
APA
Mestdagh, P., Gillard, M., Dhillon, S. K., Pirnay, J.-P., Poels, J., Hellemans, J., … Vandesompele, J. (2021). Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of saliva sampling methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reveals differential sensitivity and association with viral load. JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS, 23(10), 1249–1258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2021.07.017
Chicago author-date
Mestdagh, Pieter, Michel Gillard, Sharonjit K. Dhillon, Jean-Paul Pirnay, Jeroen Poels, Jan Hellemans, Veronik Hutse, et al. 2021. “Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy of Saliva Sampling Methods for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Reveals Differential Sensitivity and Association with Viral Load.” JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS 23 (10): 1249–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2021.07.017.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Mestdagh, Pieter, Michel Gillard, Sharonjit K. Dhillon, Jean-Paul Pirnay, Jeroen Poels, Jan Hellemans, Veronik Hutse, Celine Vermeiren, Maxime Boutier, Veerle De Wever, Patrick Soentjens, Sarah Djebara, Hugues Malonne, Emmanuel André, Marc Arbyn, John Smeraglia, and Jo Vandesompele. 2021. “Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy of Saliva Sampling Methods for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Reveals Differential Sensitivity and Association with Viral Load.” JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS 23 (10): 1249–1258. doi:10.1016/j.jmoldx.2021.07.017.
Vancouver
1.
Mestdagh P, Gillard M, Dhillon SK, Pirnay J-P, Poels J, Hellemans J, et al. Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of saliva sampling methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reveals differential sensitivity and association with viral load. JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS. 2021;23(10):1249–58.
IEEE
[1]
P. Mestdagh et al., “Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of saliva sampling methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reveals differential sensitivity and association with viral load,” JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 1249–1258, 2021.
@article{8743618,
  abstract     = {{Nasopharyngeal swabs are considered the preferential collection method for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostics. Less invasive and simpler alternative sampling procedures, such as saliva collection, are desirable. We compared saliva specimens and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs with respect to sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2. A nasopharyngeal and two saliva specimens (collected by spitting or oral swabbing) were obtained from >2500 individuals. All samples were tested by RT-qPCR, detecting RNA of SARS-CoV-2. The test sensitivity was compared on the two saliva collections with the nasopharyngeal specimen for all subjects and stratified by symptom status and viral load. Of the 2850 patients for whom all three samples were available, 105 were positive on NP swab, whereas 32 and 23 were also positive on saliva spitting and saliva swabbing samples, respectively. The sensitivity of the RT-qPCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 among NP-positive patients was 30.5% (95% CI, 1.9%-40.2%) for saliva spitting and 21.9% (95% CI, 14.4%-31.0%) for saliva swabbing. However, when focusing on subjects with medium to high viral load, sensitivity on saliva increased substantially: 93.9% (95% CI, 79.8%-99.3%) and 76.9% (95% CI, 56.4%-91.0%) for spitting and swabbing, respectively, regardless of symptomatic status. Our results suggest that saliva cannot readily replace nasopharyngeal sampling for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics but may enable identification of the most contagious cases with medium to high viral loads.}},
  author       = {{Mestdagh, Pieter and Gillard, Michel and Dhillon, Sharonjit K. and Pirnay, Jean-Paul and Poels, Jeroen and Hellemans, Jan and Hutse, Veronik and Vermeiren, Celine and Boutier, Maxime and De Wever, Veerle and Soentjens, Patrick and Djebara, Sarah and Malonne, Hugues and André, Emmanuel and Arbyn, Marc and Smeraglia, John and Vandesompele, Jo}},
  issn         = {{1525-1578}},
  journal      = {{JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS}},
  keywords     = {{Molecular Medicine,Pathology and Forensic Medicine}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{10}},
  pages        = {{1249--1258}},
  title        = {{Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of saliva sampling methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reveals differential sensitivity and association with viral load}},
  url          = {{http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2021.07.017}},
  volume       = {{23}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}
Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: