SARS-CoV-2 detection on self-collected saliva or anterior nasal specimens compared with healthcare personnel-collected nasopharyngeal specimens

Nasopharyngeal specimens (NPS) are commonly used for SARS-CoV-2 testing but can be uncomfortable for patients. Self-collected saliva or anterior nasal specimens (ANS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection are less invasive but the sensitivity of these specimen types has not been thoroughly evaluated. During Sept...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical infectious diseases 2021-04
Hauptverfasser: Marx, Grace E, Biggerstaff, Brad J, Nawrocki, Courtney C, Totten, Sarah E, Travanty, Emily A, Burakoff, Alexis W, Scott, Tracy, De Hey, Jesse Chavez-Van, Carlson, Jesse J, Wendel, Karen A, Harcourt, Jennifer L, Tamin, Azaibi, Thomas, Jennifer D, Rowan, Sarah E
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title Clinical infectious diseases
container_volume
creator Marx, Grace E
Biggerstaff, Brad J
Nawrocki, Courtney C
Totten, Sarah E
Travanty, Emily A
Burakoff, Alexis W
Scott, Tracy
De Hey, Jesse Chavez-Van
Carlson, Jesse J
Wendel, Karen A
Harcourt, Jennifer L
Tamin, Azaibi
Thomas, Jennifer D
Rowan, Sarah E
description Nasopharyngeal specimens (NPS) are commonly used for SARS-CoV-2 testing but can be uncomfortable for patients. Self-collected saliva or anterior nasal specimens (ANS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection are less invasive but the sensitivity of these specimen types has not been thoroughly evaluated. During September-November 2020, 730 adults undergoing SARS-CoV-2 testing at community testing events and homeless shelters in Denver provided self-collected saliva and ANS specimens before NPS collection and answered a short survey about symptoms and specimen preference. Specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by rRT-PCR; viral culture was performed on a subset of specimens positive by rRT-PCR. Sensitivity of saliva and ANS for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR was measured against NPS. Subgroup analyses included test outcomes by symptom status and culture results. Sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR appeared higher for saliva than for ANS (85% vs. 80%) and among symptomatic participants than among those without symptoms (94% vs. 29% for saliva; 87% vs. 50% for ANS). Among participants with culture-positive SARS-CoV-2 by any specimen type, sensitivity of saliva and ANS by rRT-PCR was 94% and 100%, respectively. Saliva and ANS were equally preferred by participants; most would undergo NPS again despite being least preferred. Saliva was slightly more sensitive than ANS for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR. Both saliva and ANS reliably detected SARS-CoV-2 among participants with symptoms. Self-collected saliva and ANS offer practical advantages, are preferred by patients, and might be most useful for testing people with COVID-19 symptoms.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/cid/ciab330
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmed</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8135412</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>33912930</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p782-cf0a03339ca726b9f85445cb65d7d82bd2ef5f056fe527d60be4705157ad9843</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkNtKxDAQhoMo7rp65b3kBaI5NG16IyyLJ1gQXPG2pMl0G2mT0tQVn8JXNuCBFWaY4Z-Zj5lB6JzRS0ZLcWWcTa5rIegBmjMpCpLLkh2mnEpFMiXUDJ3E-EopY4rKYzQTomS8FHSOPjfLpw1ZhRfCsYUJzOSCx8kidA0xoeuSBBZH3bmdxmHE2k8wupR4nUQcBzCuBx-xCf2gx9T77qYWt6C7qTVJwAOMMXgP3R4vDYeh1eOH38I-5RQdNbqLcPYTF2hze_O8uifrx7uH1XJNhkJxYhqqqUhXGF3wvC4bJbNMmjqXtrCK15ZDIxsq8wYkL2xOa8gKKpkstC1VJhbo-ps6vNU9WAN-GnVXDaPr00pV0K76X_GurbZhVykmZMZ4AlzsA_4mfx8rvgCVA3-p</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>SARS-CoV-2 detection on self-collected saliva or anterior nasal specimens compared with healthcare personnel-collected nasopharyngeal specimens</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Marx, Grace E ; Biggerstaff, Brad J ; Nawrocki, Courtney C ; Totten, Sarah E ; Travanty, Emily A ; Burakoff, Alexis W ; Scott, Tracy ; De Hey, Jesse Chavez-Van ; Carlson, Jesse J ; Wendel, Karen A ; Harcourt, Jennifer L ; Tamin, Azaibi ; Thomas, Jennifer D ; Rowan, Sarah E</creator><creatorcontrib>Marx, Grace E ; Biggerstaff, Brad J ; Nawrocki, Courtney C ; Totten, Sarah E ; Travanty, Emily A ; Burakoff, Alexis W ; Scott, Tracy ; De Hey, Jesse Chavez-Van ; Carlson, Jesse J ; Wendel, Karen A ; Harcourt, Jennifer L ; Tamin, Azaibi ; Thomas, Jennifer D ; Rowan, Sarah E ; CDPHE COVID-19 Laboratory Response Team ; CDC COVID-19 Laboratory Response Team</creatorcontrib><description>Nasopharyngeal specimens (NPS) are commonly used for SARS-CoV-2 testing but can be uncomfortable for patients. Self-collected saliva or anterior nasal specimens (ANS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection are less invasive but the sensitivity of these specimen types has not been thoroughly evaluated. During September-November 2020, 730 adults undergoing SARS-CoV-2 testing at community testing events and homeless shelters in Denver provided self-collected saliva and ANS specimens before NPS collection and answered a short survey about symptoms and specimen preference. Specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by rRT-PCR; viral culture was performed on a subset of specimens positive by rRT-PCR. Sensitivity of saliva and ANS for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR was measured against NPS. Subgroup analyses included test outcomes by symptom status and culture results. Sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR appeared higher for saliva than for ANS (85% vs. 80%) and among symptomatic participants than among those without symptoms (94% vs. 29% for saliva; 87% vs. 50% for ANS). Among participants with culture-positive SARS-CoV-2 by any specimen type, sensitivity of saliva and ANS by rRT-PCR was 94% and 100%, respectively. Saliva and ANS were equally preferred by participants; most would undergo NPS again despite being least preferred. Saliva was slightly more sensitive than ANS for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR. Both saliva and ANS reliably detected SARS-CoV-2 among participants with symptoms. Self-collected saliva and ANS offer practical advantages, are preferred by patients, and might be most useful for testing people with COVID-19 symptoms.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1058-4838</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1537-6591</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciab330</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33912930</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Supplement</subject><ispartof>Clinical infectious diseases, 2021-04</ispartof><rights>Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.</rights><rights>Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US. 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33912930$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Marx, Grace E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Biggerstaff, Brad J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nawrocki, Courtney C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Totten, Sarah E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Travanty, Emily A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burakoff, Alexis W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scott, Tracy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Hey, Jesse Chavez-Van</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carlson, Jesse J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wendel, Karen A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harcourt, Jennifer L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tamin, Azaibi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomas, Jennifer D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rowan, Sarah E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CDPHE COVID-19 Laboratory Response Team</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CDC COVID-19 Laboratory Response Team</creatorcontrib><title>SARS-CoV-2 detection on self-collected saliva or anterior nasal specimens compared with healthcare personnel-collected nasopharyngeal specimens</title><title>Clinical infectious diseases</title><addtitle>Clin Infect Dis</addtitle><description>Nasopharyngeal specimens (NPS) are commonly used for SARS-CoV-2 testing but can be uncomfortable for patients. Self-collected saliva or anterior nasal specimens (ANS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection are less invasive but the sensitivity of these specimen types has not been thoroughly evaluated. During September-November 2020, 730 adults undergoing SARS-CoV-2 testing at community testing events and homeless shelters in Denver provided self-collected saliva and ANS specimens before NPS collection and answered a short survey about symptoms and specimen preference. Specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by rRT-PCR; viral culture was performed on a subset of specimens positive by rRT-PCR. Sensitivity of saliva and ANS for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR was measured against NPS. Subgroup analyses included test outcomes by symptom status and culture results. Sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR appeared higher for saliva than for ANS (85% vs. 80%) and among symptomatic participants than among those without symptoms (94% vs. 29% for saliva; 87% vs. 50% for ANS). Among participants with culture-positive SARS-CoV-2 by any specimen type, sensitivity of saliva and ANS by rRT-PCR was 94% and 100%, respectively. Saliva and ANS were equally preferred by participants; most would undergo NPS again despite being least preferred. Saliva was slightly more sensitive than ANS for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR. Both saliva and ANS reliably detected SARS-CoV-2 among participants with symptoms. Self-collected saliva and ANS offer practical advantages, are preferred by patients, and might be most useful for testing people with COVID-19 symptoms.</description><subject>Supplement</subject><issn>1058-4838</issn><issn>1537-6591</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpVkNtKxDAQhoMo7rp65b3kBaI5NG16IyyLJ1gQXPG2pMl0G2mT0tQVn8JXNuCBFWaY4Z-Zj5lB6JzRS0ZLcWWcTa5rIegBmjMpCpLLkh2mnEpFMiXUDJ3E-EopY4rKYzQTomS8FHSOPjfLpw1ZhRfCsYUJzOSCx8kidA0xoeuSBBZH3bmdxmHE2k8wupR4nUQcBzCuBx-xCf2gx9T77qYWt6C7qTVJwAOMMXgP3R4vDYeh1eOH38I-5RQdNbqLcPYTF2hze_O8uifrx7uH1XJNhkJxYhqqqUhXGF3wvC4bJbNMmjqXtrCK15ZDIxsq8wYkL2xOa8gKKpkstC1VJhbo-ps6vNU9WAN-GnVXDaPr00pV0K76X_GurbZhVykmZMZ4AlzsA_4mfx8rvgCVA3-p</recordid><startdate>20210429</startdate><enddate>20210429</enddate><creator>Marx, Grace E</creator><creator>Biggerstaff, Brad J</creator><creator>Nawrocki, Courtney C</creator><creator>Totten, Sarah E</creator><creator>Travanty, Emily A</creator><creator>Burakoff, Alexis W</creator><creator>Scott, Tracy</creator><creator>De Hey, Jesse Chavez-Van</creator><creator>Carlson, Jesse J</creator><creator>Wendel, Karen A</creator><creator>Harcourt, Jennifer L</creator><creator>Tamin, Azaibi</creator><creator>Thomas, Jennifer D</creator><creator>Rowan, Sarah E</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210429</creationdate><title>SARS-CoV-2 detection on self-collected saliva or anterior nasal specimens compared with healthcare personnel-collected nasopharyngeal specimens</title><author>Marx, Grace E ; Biggerstaff, Brad J ; Nawrocki, Courtney C ; Totten, Sarah E ; Travanty, Emily A ; Burakoff, Alexis W ; Scott, Tracy ; De Hey, Jesse Chavez-Van ; Carlson, Jesse J ; Wendel, Karen A ; Harcourt, Jennifer L ; Tamin, Azaibi ; Thomas, Jennifer D ; Rowan, Sarah E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p782-cf0a03339ca726b9f85445cb65d7d82bd2ef5f056fe527d60be4705157ad9843</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Supplement</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Marx, Grace E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Biggerstaff, Brad J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nawrocki, Courtney C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Totten, Sarah E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Travanty, Emily A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burakoff, Alexis W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scott, Tracy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Hey, Jesse Chavez-Van</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carlson, Jesse J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wendel, Karen A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harcourt, Jennifer L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tamin, Azaibi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomas, Jennifer D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rowan, Sarah E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CDPHE COVID-19 Laboratory Response Team</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CDC COVID-19 Laboratory Response Team</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Clinical infectious diseases</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Marx, Grace E</au><au>Biggerstaff, Brad J</au><au>Nawrocki, Courtney C</au><au>Totten, Sarah E</au><au>Travanty, Emily A</au><au>Burakoff, Alexis W</au><au>Scott, Tracy</au><au>De Hey, Jesse Chavez-Van</au><au>Carlson, Jesse J</au><au>Wendel, Karen A</au><au>Harcourt, Jennifer L</au><au>Tamin, Azaibi</au><au>Thomas, Jennifer D</au><au>Rowan, Sarah E</au><aucorp>CDPHE COVID-19 Laboratory Response Team</aucorp><aucorp>CDC COVID-19 Laboratory Response Team</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>SARS-CoV-2 detection on self-collected saliva or anterior nasal specimens compared with healthcare personnel-collected nasopharyngeal specimens</atitle><jtitle>Clinical infectious diseases</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Infect Dis</addtitle><date>2021-04-29</date><risdate>2021</risdate><issn>1058-4838</issn><eissn>1537-6591</eissn><abstract>Nasopharyngeal specimens (NPS) are commonly used for SARS-CoV-2 testing but can be uncomfortable for patients. Self-collected saliva or anterior nasal specimens (ANS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection are less invasive but the sensitivity of these specimen types has not been thoroughly evaluated. During September-November 2020, 730 adults undergoing SARS-CoV-2 testing at community testing events and homeless shelters in Denver provided self-collected saliva and ANS specimens before NPS collection and answered a short survey about symptoms and specimen preference. Specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by rRT-PCR; viral culture was performed on a subset of specimens positive by rRT-PCR. Sensitivity of saliva and ANS for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR was measured against NPS. Subgroup analyses included test outcomes by symptom status and culture results. Sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR appeared higher for saliva than for ANS (85% vs. 80%) and among symptomatic participants than among those without symptoms (94% vs. 29% for saliva; 87% vs. 50% for ANS). Among participants with culture-positive SARS-CoV-2 by any specimen type, sensitivity of saliva and ANS by rRT-PCR was 94% and 100%, respectively. Saliva and ANS were equally preferred by participants; most would undergo NPS again despite being least preferred. Saliva was slightly more sensitive than ANS for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR. Both saliva and ANS reliably detected SARS-CoV-2 among participants with symptoms. Self-collected saliva and ANS offer practical advantages, are preferred by patients, and might be most useful for testing people with COVID-19 symptoms.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>33912930</pmid><doi>10.1093/cid/ciab330</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1058-4838
ispartof Clinical infectious diseases, 2021-04
issn 1058-4838
1537-6591
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8135412
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Supplement
title SARS-CoV-2 detection on self-collected saliva or anterior nasal specimens compared with healthcare personnel-collected nasopharyngeal specimens
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T17%3A56%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=SARS-CoV-2%20detection%20on%20self-collected%20saliva%20or%20anterior%20nasal%20specimens%20compared%20with%20healthcare%20personnel-collected%20nasopharyngeal%20specimens&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20infectious%20diseases&rft.au=Marx,%20Grace%20E&rft.aucorp=CDPHE%20COVID-19%20Laboratory%20Response%20Team&rft.date=2021-04-29&rft.issn=1058-4838&rft.eissn=1537-6591&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/cid/ciab330&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed%3E33912930%3C/pubmed%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/33912930&rfr_iscdi=true