tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Ann Intern Med
. 2021 Jan 12.
doi: 10.7326/M20-6569. Online ahead of print.
The Sensitivity and Costs of Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Infection With Saliva Versus Nasopharyngeal Swabs : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Mayara Lisboa Bastos[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Sara Perlman-Arrow[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Dick Menzies[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Jonathon R Campbell[SUP] 4 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Background: Nasopharyngeal swabs are the primary sampling method used for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but they require a trained health care professional and extensive personal protective equipment.
Purpose: To determine the difference in sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection between nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva and estimate the incremental cost per additional SARS-CoV-2 infection detected with nasopharyngeal swabs.
Data sources: Embase, Medline, medRxiv, and bioRxiv were searched from 1 January to 1 November 2020. Cost inputs were from nationally representative sources in Canada and were converted to 2020 U.S. dollars.
Study selection: Studies including at least 5 paired nasopharyngeal swab and saliva samples and reporting diagnostic accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
Data extraction: Data were independently extracted using standardized forms, and study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2).
Data synthesis: Thirty-seven studies with 7332 paired samples were included. Against a reference standard of a positive result on either sample, the sensitivity of saliva was 3.4 percentage points lower (95% CI, 9.9 percentage points lower to 3.1 percentage points higher) than that of nasopharyngeal swabs. Among persons with previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, saliva's sensitivity was 1.5 percentage points higher (CI, 7.3 percentage points lower to 10.3 percentage points higher) than that of nasopharyngeal swabs. Among persons without a previous SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, saliva was 7.9 percentage points less (CI, 14.7 percentage points less to 0.8 percentage point more) sensitive. In this subgroup, if testing 100 000 persons with a SARS-CoV-2 prevalence of 1%, nasopharyngeal swabs would detect 79 more (95% uncertainty interval, 5 fewer to 166 more) persons with SARS-CoV-2 than saliva, but with an incremental cost per additional infection detected of $8093.
Limitation: The reference standard was imperfect, and saliva collection procedures varied.
Conclusion: Saliva sampling seems to be a similarly sensitive and less costly alternative that could replace nasopharyngeal swabs for collection of clinical samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing.
. 2021 Jan 12.
doi: 10.7326/M20-6569. Online ahead of print.
The Sensitivity and Costs of Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Infection With Saliva Versus Nasopharyngeal Swabs : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Mayara Lisboa Bastos[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Sara Perlman-Arrow[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Dick Menzies[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Jonathon R Campbell[SUP] 4 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 33428446
- DOI: 10.7326/M20-6569
Abstract
Background: Nasopharyngeal swabs are the primary sampling method used for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but they require a trained health care professional and extensive personal protective equipment.
Purpose: To determine the difference in sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection between nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva and estimate the incremental cost per additional SARS-CoV-2 infection detected with nasopharyngeal swabs.
Data sources: Embase, Medline, medRxiv, and bioRxiv were searched from 1 January to 1 November 2020. Cost inputs were from nationally representative sources in Canada and were converted to 2020 U.S. dollars.
Study selection: Studies including at least 5 paired nasopharyngeal swab and saliva samples and reporting diagnostic accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
Data extraction: Data were independently extracted using standardized forms, and study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2).
Data synthesis: Thirty-seven studies with 7332 paired samples were included. Against a reference standard of a positive result on either sample, the sensitivity of saliva was 3.4 percentage points lower (95% CI, 9.9 percentage points lower to 3.1 percentage points higher) than that of nasopharyngeal swabs. Among persons with previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, saliva's sensitivity was 1.5 percentage points higher (CI, 7.3 percentage points lower to 10.3 percentage points higher) than that of nasopharyngeal swabs. Among persons without a previous SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, saliva was 7.9 percentage points less (CI, 14.7 percentage points less to 0.8 percentage point more) sensitive. In this subgroup, if testing 100 000 persons with a SARS-CoV-2 prevalence of 1%, nasopharyngeal swabs would detect 79 more (95% uncertainty interval, 5 fewer to 166 more) persons with SARS-CoV-2 than saliva, but with an incremental cost per additional infection detected of $8093.
Limitation: The reference standard was imperfect, and saliva collection procedures varied.
Conclusion: Saliva sampling seems to be a similarly sensitive and less costly alternative that could replace nasopharyngeal swabs for collection of clinical samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing.