Samsunder Natasha, Sivro Aida, Hassan-Moosa Razia, Lewis Lara, Kara Zahra, Baxter Cheryl, Karim Quarraisha Abdool, Karim Salim Abdool, Kharsany Ayesha B M, Naidoo Kogieleum, Ngcapu Sinaye
Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA), 719 Umbilo Road, Durban, 4001, South Africa.
Department of Medical Microbiology, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Diagn Progn Res. 2024 Jul 24;8(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s41512-024-00176-2.
Saliva has been proposed as a potential more convenient, cost-effective, and easier sample for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infections, but there is limited knowledge of the impact of saliva volumes and stages of infection on its sensitivity and specificity.
In this study, we assessed the performance of SARS-CoV-2 testing in 171 saliva samples from 52 mostly mildly symptomatic patients (aged 18 to 70 years) with a positive reference standard result at screening. The samples were collected at different volumes (50, 100, 300, and 500 µl of saliva) and at different stages of the disease (at enrollment, day 7, 14, and 28 post SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis). Imperfect nasopharyngeal (NP) swab nucleic acid amplification testing was used as a reference. We used a logistic regression with generalized estimating equations to estimate sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV, accounting for the correlation between repeated observations.
The sensitivity and specificity values were consistent across saliva volumes. The sensitivity of saliva samples ranged from 70.2% (95% CI, 49.3-85.0%) for 100 μl to 81.0% (95% CI, 51.9-94.4%) for 300 μl of saliva collected. The specificity values ranged between 75.8% (95% CI, 55.0-88.9%) for 50 μl and 78.8% (95% CI, 63.2-88.9%) for 100 μl saliva compared to NP swab samples. The overall percentage of positive results in NP swabs and saliva specimens remained comparable throughout the study visits. We observed no significant difference in cycle number values between saliva and NP swab specimens, irrespective of saliva volume tested.
The saliva collection offers a promising approach for population-based testing.
唾液已被提议作为一种可能更便捷、更具成本效益且更易获取的样本用于诊断新型冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)感染,但关于唾液量和感染阶段对其敏感性和特异性的影响,人们了解有限。
在本研究中,我们评估了对52名大多为轻症患者(年龄18至70岁)的171份唾液样本进行SARS-CoV-2检测的性能,这些患者在筛查时参考标准结果为阳性。样本在不同唾液量(50、100、300和500微升唾液)以及疾病的不同阶段(入组时、SARS-CoV-2诊断后第7天、14天和28天)采集。将不完善的鼻咽拭子核酸扩增检测用作参考。我们使用带有广义估计方程的逻辑回归来估计敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值,并考虑重复观察之间的相关性。
唾液量不同时,敏感性和特异性值保持一致。采集的100微升唾液样本的敏感性范围为70.2%(95%置信区间,49.3 - 85.0%),300微升唾液样本的敏感性为81.0%(95%置信区间,51.9 - 94.4%)。与鼻咽拭子样本相比,50微升唾液样本的特异性值在75.8%(95%置信区间,55.0 - 88.9%)之间,100微升唾液样本的特异性为78.8%(95%置信区间,63.2 - 88.9%)。在整个研究访视期间,鼻咽拭子和唾液标本的阳性结果总体百分比保持相当。无论检测的唾液量如何,我们观察到唾液标本和鼻咽拭子标本之间的循环数数值无显著差异。
唾液采集为基于人群的检测提供了一种有前景的方法。