TY - JOUR
T1 - Does sampling saliva increase detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR? Comparing saliva with oro-nasopharyngeal swabs
AU - Dogan, Ozlem Akgun
AU - Kose, Betsi
AU - Agaoglu, Nihat Bugra
AU - Yildiz, Jale
AU - Alkurt, Gizem
AU - Demirkol, Yasemin Kendir
AU - Irvem, Arzu
AU - Doganay, Gizem Dinler
AU - Doganay, Levent
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2021/4
Y1 - 2021/4
N2 - The gold standard method in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is the detection of viral RNA in the nasopharyngeal sample by RT-PCR. Recently, saliva samples have been suggested as an alternative sample. In the present study, we aimed to compare RT-PCR results in nasopharyngeal, oro-nasopharyngeal and saliva samples of COVID-19 patients. 98 of 200 patients were positive in RT-PCR analysis performed before the hospitalization. On day 0, at least one sample was positive in 67 % of 98 patients. The positivity rate was 83 % for both oro-nasopharyngeal and nasopharyngeal samples, while it was 63 % for saliva samples (p < 0.001). On day 5, RT-PCR was performed in 59 patients, 34 % had at least one positive result. The positivity rate was 55 % for both saliva and nasopharyngeal samples, while it was 60 % for oro-nasopharyngeal samples. Our study shows that the sampling saliva does not increase the sensitivity of RT-PCR tests at the early stages of infection. However, on the 5th day, viral RNA detection rates in saliva were similar to nasopharyngeal and oro-nasopharyngeal samples. In conclusion, we suggest that, in patients receiving treatment, RT-PCR in saliva, in addition to the standard samples, is important to determine the isolation period and control transmission.
AB - The gold standard method in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is the detection of viral RNA in the nasopharyngeal sample by RT-PCR. Recently, saliva samples have been suggested as an alternative sample. In the present study, we aimed to compare RT-PCR results in nasopharyngeal, oro-nasopharyngeal and saliva samples of COVID-19 patients. 98 of 200 patients were positive in RT-PCR analysis performed before the hospitalization. On day 0, at least one sample was positive in 67 % of 98 patients. The positivity rate was 83 % for both oro-nasopharyngeal and nasopharyngeal samples, while it was 63 % for saliva samples (p < 0.001). On day 5, RT-PCR was performed in 59 patients, 34 % had at least one positive result. The positivity rate was 55 % for both saliva and nasopharyngeal samples, while it was 60 % for oro-nasopharyngeal samples. Our study shows that the sampling saliva does not increase the sensitivity of RT-PCR tests at the early stages of infection. However, on the 5th day, viral RNA detection rates in saliva were similar to nasopharyngeal and oro-nasopharyngeal samples. In conclusion, we suggest that, in patients receiving treatment, RT-PCR in saliva, in addition to the standard samples, is important to determine the isolation period and control transmission.
KW - Coronavirus
KW - RT-PCR
KW - SARS-CoV-2
KW - saliva
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85100184493&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jviromet.2020.114049
DO - 10.1016/j.jviromet.2020.114049
M3 - Article
C2 - 33387561
AN - SCOPUS:85100184493
SN - 0166-0934
VL - 290
JO - Journal of Virological Methods
JF - Journal of Virological Methods
M1 - 114049
ER -