Diagnostic accuracy of nasopharyngeal swab, nasal swab and saliva swab samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR

Yoshie Tsujimoto, Junko Terada, Moto Kimura, Ataru Moriya, Ayano Motohashi, Shinyu Izumi, Kazuki Kawajiri, Kazuo Hakkaku, Momoko Morishita, Susumu Saito, Hiroshi Takumida, Hiromu Watanabe, Akinari Tsukada, Chie Morita, Yoh Yamaguchi, Takashi Katsuno, Yusaku Kusaba, Keita Sakamoto, Masao Hashimoto, Manabu Suzuki, Jin Takasaki, Masayuki Hojo, Tohru Miyoshi-Akiyama, Haruhito Sugiyama, Yoshie Tsujimoto, Junko Terada, Moto Kimura, Ataru Moriya, Ayano Motohashi, Shinyu Izumi, Kazuki Kawajiri, Kazuo Hakkaku, Momoko Morishita, Susumu Saito, Hiroshi Takumida, Hiromu Watanabe, Akinari Tsukada, Chie Morita, Yoh Yamaguchi, Takashi Katsuno, Yusaku Kusaba, Keita Sakamoto, Masao Hashimoto, Manabu Suzuki, Jin Takasaki, Masayuki Hojo, Tohru Miyoshi-Akiyama, Haruhito Sugiyama

Abstract

Background: The current gold standard in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) diagnostics is the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. Alternatively, nasal swab (NS) or saliva swab (SS) specimens are used, although available data on test accuracy are limited. We examined the diagnostic accuracy of NPS/NS/SS samples for this purpose.

Methods: Ten patients were included after being tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in NPS samples according to the National Institute of Infectious Disease guidelines. In comparison with this conventional diagnostic method, NPS/NS/SS samples were tested using the cobas 6800 systems RT-PCR device. To investigate the usefulness of the cobas method and the difference among sample types, the agreement and sensitivity were calculated. Five to six samples were collected over a total period of 5-6 d from each patient.

Results: Fifty-seven sets of NPS/NS/SS samples were collected, of which 40 tested positive for COVID-19 by the conventional method. Overall, the concordance rates using the conventional method were 86.0%/70.2%/54.4% for NPS/NS/SS samples (cobas); however, for samples collected up to and including on Day 9 after disease onset (22 negative and one positive specimens), the corresponding rates were 95.7%/87.0%/65.2%. The overall sensitivity estimates were 100.0%/67.5%/37.5% for NPS/NS/SS samples (cobas). For samples up to 9 d after onset, the corresponding values were 100.0%/86.4%/63.6%.

Conclusions: NS samples are more reliable than SS samples and can be an alternative to NPS samples. They can be a useful diagnostic method in the future.

Keywords: COVID-19 diagnostic test; nasal swab; nasopharyngeal swab; saliva.

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Correlation between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) cycle threshold (Ct) value and reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results of each sample. We examined the differences between the Ct value and copy number of nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and whether the NPS and the corresponding nasal swab (NS)/saliva specimen (SS) results were consistent. Comparisons were performed with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Changes to cycle threshold (Ct) values of nasopharyngeal swab/nasal swab/saliva specimen (NPS/NS/SS) samples since onset, shown in the graph of the median Ct value per days classification. The sample timepoint was classified as 1 within 7 d, 2 within 8–1 d, 3 within 12–16 d and 4 after 17 d. NPS, p<.001; NS, p=.003; SS, p=.585.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
RT-PCR results from 10 patients, according to the number of days since symptom onset. NPS (NIID): nasopharyngeal swab tested by SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR according to the National Institute of Infectious Diseases guidelines as reference. NPS: nasopharyngeal swab; NS: nasal swab; SS: saliva specimen; RT-PCR: reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction.

References

    1. Guan W, Ni Z, Hu Y, et al. . Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(18):1708–1720.
    1. World Health Organization . Statement on the third meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) [Internet]; 2021. [cited 2021 Jan 14]. Available from: .
    1. World Health Organization . Laboratory testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in suspected human cases. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2020. p. 1–7.
    1. Zou L, Ruan F, Huang M, et al. . SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(12):1177–1179.
    1. Wehrhahn MC, Robson J, Brown S, et al. . Self-collection: an appropriate alternative during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. J Clin Virol. 2020;128:104417.
    1. To KKW, Tsang OTY, Leung WS, et al. . Temporal profiles of viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples and serum antibody responses during infection by SARS-CoV-2: an observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(5):565–574.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim guidelines for collecting, handling, and testing clinical specimens from persons for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2019.
    1. Hanson KE, Caliendo AM, Arias CA, et al. . Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines on the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;ciaa760.
    1. Japanese Ministry of Health L and W . Guidelines for the testing of novel coronavirus pathogens (covid-19) (Version 1). Available from: .
    1. Tu YP, Jennings R, Hart B, et al. . Swabs collected by patients or health care workers for SARS-CoV-2 testing. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(5):494–496.
    1. Butler-Laporte G, Lawandi A, Schiller I, et al. . Comparison of saliva and nasopharyngeal swab nucleic acid amplification testing for detection of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(3):353–358.
    1. World Health Organization COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel. Coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) treatment guidelines. National Institutes of Health [Internet]; 2021. [cited 2021 Jan 14]. Available from: .
    1. National Institute of Infectious Disease . Manual for the detection of pathogen 2019–nCoV Ver.2.6; 2020. [cited 2021 Jan 14]. Available from: .
    1. Gwet KL. Intrarater reliability. Wiley encyclopedia of clinical trials. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2008.
    1. Nishiura H. A robust statistic AC for assessing inter-observer agreement in reliability studies. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi. 2010;66(11):1485–1491.
    1. Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software “'EZR' for medical statistics”. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48(3):452–458.
    1. COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel. Coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) treatment guidelines. National Institutes of Health [Internet]; 2021. [cited 2021 Jan 14]. Available from:
    1. Long QX, Tang XJ, Shi QL, et al. . Clinical and immunological assessment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. Nat Med. 2020;26(8):1200–1204.
    1. Ferretti L, Wymant C, Kendall M, et al. . Quantifying SARS-CoV-2 transmission suggests epidemic control with digital contact tracing. Science. 2020;368(6491):eabb6936.
    1. Chen Y, Chen L, Deng Q, et al. . The presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the feces of COVID-19 patients. J Med Virol. 2020;92(7):833–840.
    1. Péré H, Podglajen I, Wack M, et al. . Nasal swab sampling for SARS-CoV-2: a convenient alternative in times of nasopharyngeal swab shortage. J Clin Microbiol. 2020;58(6):2–3.
    1. Berenger BM, Conly JM, Fonseca K, et al. . Saliva collected in universal transport media is an effective, simple and high-volume amenable method to detect SARS-CoV-2. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;S1198-743X(20)30689-3.
    1. Pinninti S, Trieu C, Pati SK, et al. . Comparing nasopharyngeal and mid-turbinate nasal swab testing for the identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;ciaa882.
    1. LeBlanc JJ, Heinstein C, MacDonald J, et al. . A combined oropharyngeal/nares swab is a suitable alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. J Clin Virol. 2020;128:104442.
    1. Kojima N, Turner F, Slepnev V, et al. . Self-collected oral fluid and nasal swab specimens demonstrate comparable sensitivity to clinician-collected nasopharyngeal swab specimens for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;ciaa1589.
    1. Frazee BW, Rodríguez-Hoces de la Guardia A, Alter H, et al. . Accuracy and discomfort of different types of intranasal specimen collection methods for molecular influenza testing in emergency department patients. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;71(4):509–517.e1.
    1. Williams E, Bond K, Zhang B, et al. . Saliva as a noninvasive specimen for detection of SARS-CoV-2. J Clin Microbiol. 2020;58(8):1–2.
    1. Azzi L, Carcano G, Gianfagna F, et al. . Saliva is a reliable tool to detect SARS-CoV-2. J Infect. 2020;81(1):e45–e50.
    1. To KKW, Tsang OTY, Yip CCY, et al. . Consistent detection of 2019 novel coronavirus in saliva. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(15):841–843.
    1. McCulloch DJ, Kim AE, Wilcox NC, et al. . Comparison of unsupervised home self-collected midnasal swabs with clinician-collected nasopharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(7):e2016382.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe