We found a match
Your institution may have rights to this item. Sign in to continue.
- Title
Influence of Saliva Collection Method on the Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) and Immunoglobulin G (IgG) Antibodies in the Saliva: A Cross‑Sectional Study.
- Authors
Kheur, Supriya; Sanap, Avinash; Raut, Chandrashekhar; Shekatkar, Madhura; Kharat, Avinash; Barthwal, Madhusudan; Bhawalkar, Jitendra; Kheur, Mohit; Bhonde, Ramesh
- Abstract
Background: Although the nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are considered as the gold standard specimen for the clinical diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) virus in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19), they pose several limitations such as the high risk of exposure, discomfort to the patients, and requirement of trained healthcare professionals. Aim: This study aimed to investigate “saliva” as an alternate source and the influence of the method of saliva collection on the sensitivity of SARS‑CoV‑2 detection. Materials and Methods: In this cross‑sectional study, patients were screened for the COVID‑19 infection with NPS. Saliva was collected from the same patients by four different methods (expectoration, drooling, gargling, and using salivary swabs) and stored at 80°C. Saliva samples of the patients who were detected positive for SARS‑CoV‑2 were analyzed for viral load by RT‑qPCR and immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels by ELISA. Results: Out of 350 patients screened, 43 patients were included in the study, which were found to be positive for COVID‑19 as evidenced by RT‑PCR in the NPS (positivity rate‑12.2%). Expectorated saliva exhibited 78.5% sensitivity and drooling method showed 22.2% sensitivity, whereas the salivary swab and gargling method yielded 21.42% and 16.66% sensitivity, respectively. Furthermore, the sensitivity of SARS‑CoV‑2 detection was reduced to 18.1% and 0.0% in the saliva collected by salivary swab and gargling method above the cycle threshold value 25.0 (NPS). Conclusion: Interestingly, salivary IgG showed better concordance with the viral load as compared to the serum IgG (R2 0.23 vs 0.04, P = 0.044). Expectorated saliva is a better specimen as compared to the drooling, gargling, and salivary swabs for SARS‑CoV‑2 viral detection for the clinical diagnosis of COVID‑19.
- Subjects
SARS-CoV-2; IMMUNOGLOBULIN G; SALIVA; COVID-19; VACCINE manufacturing; HIV-positive persons
- Publication
Medical Journal of Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, 2024, Vol 17, Issue 1, p52
- ISSN
2589-8302
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.4103/mjdrdypu.mjdrdypu_87_23