Evaluation of a saliva molecular point of care for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory care

Jérôme LeGoff, Solen Kernéis, Caroline Elie, Séverine Mercier-Delarue, Nabil Gastli, Laure Choupeaux, Jacques Fourgeaud, Marie-Laure Alby, Pierre Quentin, Juliette Pavie, Patricia Brazille, Marie Laure Néré, Marine Minier, Audrey Gabassi, Chrystel Leroy, Béatrice Parfait, Jean-Marc Tréluyer, Constance Delaugerre, Jérôme LeGoff, Solen Kernéis, Caroline Elie, Séverine Mercier-Delarue, Nabil Gastli, Laure Choupeaux, Jacques Fourgeaud, Marie-Laure Alby, Pierre Quentin, Juliette Pavie, Patricia Brazille, Marie Laure Néré, Marine Minier, Audrey Gabassi, Chrystel Leroy, Béatrice Parfait, Jean-Marc Tréluyer, Constance Delaugerre

Abstract

Rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals is a cornerstone for the control of virus spread. The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by RT-PCR is similar in saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs. Rapid molecular point-of-care tests in saliva could facilitate, broaden and speed up the diagnosis. We conducted a prospective study in two community COVID-19 screening centers to evaluate the performances of a CE-marked RT-LAMP assay (EasyCoV) designed for the detection of SARS-CoV2 RNA from fresh saliva samples, compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, to saliva RT-PCR and to nasopharyngeal antigen testing. Overall, 117 of the 1718 participants (7%) tested positive with nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, the sensitivity and specificity of the RT-LAMP assay in saliva were 34% and 97%, respectively. The Ct values of nasopharyngeal RT-PCR were significantly lower in the 40 true positive subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 25.9) than in the 48 false negative subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 28.4) (p = 0.028). Considering six alternate criteria for reference tests, including saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen, the sensitivity of saliva RT-LAMP ranged between 27 and 44%. The detection of SARS-CoV-2 in crude saliva samples with an RT-LAMP assay had a lower sensitivity than nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen testing.Registration number: NCT04578509.

Conflict of interest statement

All authors and persons listed in the Acknowledgments declare no conflict of interest for the submitted work. Outside the submitted work, Solen Kernéis reports consulting fees, a research grant, honoraria for a lecture and travel expenses from bioMérieux (in 2018–2019); Jerome LeGoff reports consulting fees from bioMérieux and Roche Molecular (in 2018–2019); Constance Delaugerre reports to be member of a scientific board for MSD and Gilead ViiV, and a research grant from Gilead ViiV.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flowchart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Ct values according to saliva RT-LAMP results. Ct values of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal samples (NPS) in individuals with saliva samples negative with the RT-LAMP assay (False negative) and those with saliva samples positive with the RT-LAMP assay (True positive) are presented in boxplots.

References

    1. Sharfstein JM, Becker SJ, Mello MM. Diagnostic testing for the novel coronavirus. JAMA. 2020;323:1437–1438. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3864.
    1. Paltiel AD, Zheng A, Sax PE. Clinical and economic effects of widespread rapid testing to decrease SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Ann. Intern. Med. 2021 doi: 10.7326/M21-0510.
    1. Bosetti P, et al. Impact of mass testing during an epidemic rebound of SARS-CoV-2: A modelling study using the example of France. Euro Surveill. 2021;26:2001978. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.26.1.2001978.
    1. Du Z, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies in the USA: A modelling study. Lancet Public Health. 2021;6:e184–e191. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00002-5.
    1. Hanson KE, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines on the diagnosis of COVID-19. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020 doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa760.
    1. Ricks S, et al. Quantifying the potential value of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: A modelling analysis. BMC Med. 2021;19:75. doi: 10.1186/s12916-021-01948-z.
    1. Peeling RW, Olliaro PL, Boeras DI, Fongwen N. Scaling up COVID-19 rapid antigen tests: Promises and challenges. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2021 doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00048-7.
    1. Dinnes J, et al. Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2021;3:CD013705.
    1. Takeuchi Y, et al. Diagnostic performance and characteristics of anterior nasal collection for the SARS-CoV-2 antigen test: A prospective study. Sci. Rep. 2021;11:10519. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-90026-8.
    1. Lindner AK, et al. Head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test with professional-collected nasal versus nasopharyngeal swab. Eur. Respir. J. 2021;57:2003961. doi: 10.1183/13993003.03961-2020.
    1. To KK-W, et al. Consistent detection of 2019 novel coronavirus in saliva. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020;71:841–843. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa149.
    1. Azzi L, et al. Saliva is a reliable tool to detect SARS-CoV-2. J. Infect. 2020;81:e45–e50. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.04.005.
    1. Iwasaki S, et al. Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection in nasopharyngeal swab and saliva. J. Infect. 2020;81:e145–e147. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.05.071.
    1. Tu Y-P, et al. Swabs collected by patients or health care workers for SARS-CoV-2 testing. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020;383:494–496. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2016321.
    1. Lee RA, Herigon JC, Benedetti A, Pollock NR, Denkinger CM. Performance of saliva, oropharyngeal swabs, and nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2021 doi: 10.1128/JCM.02881-20.
    1. Butler-Laporte G, 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 doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.8876.
    1. Bastos ML, Perlman-Arrow S, Menzies D, Campbell JR. The Sensitivity and costs of testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection with saliva versus nasopharyngeal swabs: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Intern. Med. 2021 doi: 10.7326/M20-6569.
    1. Fernández-González M, et al. Performance of saliva specimens for the molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 in the community setting: does sample collection method matter? J. Clin. Microbiol. 2021 doi: 10.1128/JCM.03033-20.
    1. Kernéis S, et al. Accuracy of antigen and nucleic acid amplification testing on saliva and naopharyngeal samples for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory care. MedRxiv. 2021 doi: 10.1101/2021.04.08.21255144.
    1. Wolters F, et al. Multi-center evaluation of cepheid xpert® xpress SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. J. Clin. Virol. 2020;128:104426. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104426.
    1. Subsoontorn P, Lohitnavy M, Kongkaew C. The diagnostic accuracy of isothermal nucleic acid point-of-care tests for human coronaviruses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:22349. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-79237-7.
    1. Chen JH-K, et al. Evaluating the use of posterior oropharyngeal saliva in a point-of-care assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2020;9:1356–1359. doi: 10.1080/22221751.2020.1775133.
    1. Nagura-Ikeda M, et al. Clinical evaluation of self-collected saliva by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (RT-qPCR), direct RT-qPCR, reverse transcription-loop-mediated isothermal amplification, and a rapid antigen test to diagnose COVID-19. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2020;58:e01438–e1520. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01438-20.
    1. Yamazaki W, Matsumura Y, Thongchankaew-Seo U, Yamazaki Y, Nagao M. Development of a point-of-care test to detect SARS-CoV-2 from saliva which combines a simple RNA extraction method with colorimetric reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification detection. J. Clin. Virol. 2021;136:104760. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2021.104760.
    1. Taki K, et al. SARS-CoV-2 detection by fluorescence loop-mediated isothermal amplification with and without RNA extraction. J. Infect. Chemother. 2021;27:410–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jiac.2020.10.029.
    1. L’Helgouach N, et al. EasyCOV: LAMP based rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva. MedRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.05.30.20117291.
    1. Santos Schneider, F. et al. Comparative Evaluation of Rapid Salivary RT-LAMP Assay for Screening of SARS-CoV-2 Infection. 10.2139/ssrn.3774184, (2021).
    1. Yokota, I. et al. A novel strategy for SARS-CoV-2 mass screening with quantitative antigen testing of saliva: A diagnostic accuracy study. Lancet Microbe (2021).
    1. Marot S, Calvez V, Louet M, Marcelin A-G, Burrel S. Interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 replication according to RT-PCR crossing threshold value. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.01.017.
    1. Bossuyt PM, Cohen JF, Gatsonis CA, Korevaar DA, STARD Group STARD 2015: Updated reporting guidelines for all diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann. Transl. Med. 2016;4:85.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する