• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Clin Oral Investig . Self-collected unstimulated saliva, oral swab, and nasopharyngeal swab specimens in the detection of SARS-CoV-2

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Clin Oral Investig


. 2021 Aug 13.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-04129-7. Online ahead of print.
Self-collected unstimulated saliva, oral swab, and nasopharyngeal swab specimens in the detection of SARS-CoV-2


Fernanda de Paula Eduardo[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], Leticia Mello Bezinelli[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], Carlos Ariel Rodrigues de Araujo[SUP] 2 [/SUP], João Vitor Vanderlan Moraes[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Alexander Birbrair[SUP] 4 5 [/SUP], João Renato Rebello Pinho[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Nelson Hamerschlak[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Ibtisam Al-Hashimi[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Debora Heller[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 7 8 9 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Objectives: The presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the saliva of patients infected with COVID-19 has been confirmed by several studies. However, the use of saliva for the diagnosis of COVID-19 remains limited, because of the discrepancies in the results, which might be due to using different saliva sampling methods. The purpose of this study was to compare the consistency of SARS-CoV-2 detection using two different saliva sampling methods (oral swab and unstimulated saliva) to that of the standard nasopharyngeal swab.
Methods: Fifty-five subjects were recruited from a pool of COVID-19 inpatient at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein (HIAE), Brazil. Nasopharyngeal swab, oral swab, and self-collected unstimulated saliva samples were examined for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR.
Results: Self-collected unstimulated saliva demonstrated 87.3% agreement in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus as compared with the nasopharyngeal swab, while oral swab displayed 65.9% agreement when compared to nasopharyngeal swab and 73% when compared to self-collected unstimulated saliva.
Conclusion: Unstimulated self-collected saliva samples have shown a higher agreement with the nasopharyngeal swab samples for SARS-COV-2 detection than that obtained when using oral swab samples.
Clinical relevance: This study compares the accuracy of COVID-19 test using different saliva sampling methods to that of nasopharyngeal swab. Given the need for a simple self-applied test that can be performed at home, our findings support the efficacy of self-collected unstimulated saliva samples in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, alleviating the demands for swab supplies, personal protective equipment, and healthcare personnel.

Keywords: Biomarkers; COVID-19; Coronavirus; Coronavirus infections; SARS-CoV-2; Saliva.
 
Back
Top Bottom