Abstract
Background The current diagnostic standard for coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) is reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing with naso-pharyngeal (NP) swabs. The invasiveness and need for trained personnel make the NP technique unsuited for repeated community-based mass screening. We developed a technique to collect saliva in a simple and easy way with the sponges that are usually used for tamponade of epistaxis. This study was carried out to validate the clinical performance of oral sponge (OS) sampling for SARS-CoV-2 testing.
Methods Over a period of 22 weeks, we collected prospectively 409 paired NP and OS samples from consecutive subjects presenting to a public community-based free screening center. Subjects were referred by their attending physician because of recent COVID-19 symptoms (n=147) or by the contact tracing staff of the French public health insurance since they were considered as close contacts of a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 case (n=262).
Results In symptomatic subjects, RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 testing with OS showed a 96.5% (95%CI: 89.6–94.8) concordance with NP testing, and, a 93.2% (95%CI: 89.1–97.3)] sensitivity when using the IdyllaTM platform and a sensitivity of 76.3% [69.4–83.2] on the Synlab Barla laboratory platform. In close contacts the NP-OS concordance (93.8% [95%CI: 90.9–96.7]) and OS sensitivity (71.9% [95%CI: 66.5–77.3]) were slightly lower.
Conclusion These results strongly suggest that OS testing is a straightforward, low-cost and high-throughput sampling method that can be used for frequent RT-PCR testing of COVID-19 patients and mass screening of populations.
Footnotes
This manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the ERJ Open Research. It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJOR online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Boutros has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Benzaquen has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. MARQUETTE has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Ilie has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Labaky has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Benchetrit has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Lavrut has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Leroy has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Chemla has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Carles has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Tanga has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Maniel has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Bordone has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Maryline Allégra
Conflict of interest: Virginie Lespinet
Conflict of interest: Julien Fayada
Conflict of interest: Griffonnet has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Hofman has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Hofman reports and Paul Hofman is a member of the scientific advisory board (group of european experts) of Biocartis. However, this boad is totally independ of Biocartis.
This is a PDF-only article. Please click on the PDF link above to read it.
- Received June 16, 2021.
- Accepted September 16, 2021.
- Copyright ©The authors 2021
This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org