journal article·2024-03-26Open access

Development of an Indexed Score to Identify the Most Suitable Biological Material to Assess SARS-CoV-2

Marina Almeida-Silva, Renata Cervantes, Edna Ribeiro, Ana Marques-Ramos

Applied Sciences· Volume 14· Issue 7

Abstract

Introduction: The rapidly contagious process of respiratory viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 makes it urgent to multiply testing for diagnostics to identify the active viral shedding cases (current infection, carriage state or, residual viral RNA) and decrease the risk of transmission to other patients and healthcare professionals. Although nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) are the most common specimen type used for COVID-19 diagnosis, they require supervision by a professional, and concerns have been raised regarding healthcare personnel exposure, difficulty in collection, and patient discomfort. Viral RNA can also be detected in specimens such as saliva, blood, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, sputum, faeces, and urine. This study aimed to provide updated information about the most suitable biological material to diagnose SARS-CoV-2, considering the risk assessment, specialization needed, test cost, complexity of the collection, and sample treatment associated with the different types of specimens. Methods: An extensive search of scientific review articles was made to collect information about the biological specimens to identify SARS-CoV-2 in the urine, sputum, nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal, bronchoalveolar (BAL), saliva, faeces, and blood. For this purpose, an index score was developed based on seven categories: Materials and Equipment; Infection Risk for the Health Professional; Infection Risk for the Patient; Collection; Cost; Specialized HR; and RNA Extraction Type. Results and Discussion: Each criterion from the index score was quoted from 1.0 to 5.0, and a sum was made to classify which specimen is the best choice to diagnose SARS-CoV-2, according to the chosen parameters. Data indicated that urine specimens are the most elementary biological sample to access. Regarding RNA extraction, NPSs, OPS, and BAL presented the maximum score. However, BAL has the lowest score regarding associated costs. Concerning sputum and saliva, all the aspects were evaluated with a score of 5.0 except for the RNA Extraction Type in sputum. Regarding the total scores of the multiple specimens, the lowest corresponds to BAL with a score of 1.7, followed by blood with 3.1 and NPSs and OPS with 3.6 and 3.7, respectively. Urine and faeces have the same value, 4.4, sputum has 4.9, and the highest and maximum possible value corresponds to saliva with 5.0, making this last specimen the most suitable for all considered parameters. Conclusion: Although OPS and NPSs are the most used specimens, there are better alternatives. Among all the specimens of the respiratory system, saliva is the most cost-effective specimen for performing SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Even though these infections are usually diagnosed clinically based on symptoms and local epidemiology, the identification of the specific pathogen may affect clinical management and be crucial for containing potential outbreaks.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Dental Research and COVID-19 · SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing · COVID-19 diagnosis using AI

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

H&TRC—Health & Technology Research Center, ESTeSL—Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde, Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa, 1990-096 Lisboa, Portugal

OSEAN—Outermost Regions Sustainable Ecosystem for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 9000-082 Funchal, Portugal

Funding

FCT/MCTES national support

References (70)

Show source-provided references
1. World Health Organization (2021, January 01). Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic. Available online: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019.
2. Saliva as a Promising Biofluid for SARS-CoV-2 Detection during the Early Stages of Infection
3. NIH: National Institute on Aging (2021, April 16). Why COVID-19 Testing Is the Key to Getting Back to Normal, Available online: http://www.nia.nih.gov/news/why-covid-19-testing-key-getting-back-normal.
4. Corman, V., Bleicker, T., Brünink, S., Drosten, C., Landt, O., Koopmans, M., Mc, E., and Zambon, M. (2020). Diagnostic Detection of 2019-nCoV by Real-Time RT-PCR, World Health Organization.
5. Saliva for Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2: First Report from India10.1002/jmv.26719 ↗
6. Saliva as an Alternative Specimen for Molecular COVID-19 Testing in Community Settings and Population-Based Screening10.2147/IDR.S275152 ↗
7. Coronavirus COVID-19 Impacts to Dentistry and Potential Salivary Diagnosis10.1007/s00784-020-03248-x ↗
8. The Yield and Consistency of the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Multiple Respiratory Specimens10.1093/ofid/ofaa379 ↗
9. World Health Organization (2021, January 02). Consensus Document on the Epidemiology of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/70863/WHO_CDS_CSR_GAR_2003.11_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
10. Khurshid, Z., Asiri, F.Y.I., and Al Wadaani, H. (2020). Human Saliva: Non-Invasive Fluid for Detecting Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17.10.3390/ijerph17072225 ↗
11. Molecular and Serological Investigation of 2019-nCoV Infected Patients: Implication of Multiple Shedding Routes10.1080/22221751.2020.1729071 ↗
12. Detection of Novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) RNA in Peripheral Blood Specimens10.1186/s12967-020-02589-1 ↗
13. SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: A Review of Molecular Diagnostic Tools Including Sample Collection and Commercial Response with Associated Advantages and Limitations10.1007/s00216-020-02958-1 ↗
14. Reliability of Induced Sputum Test Is Greater than That of Throat Swab Test for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 in Patients with COVID-19: A Multi-Center Cross-Sectional Study10.1080/21505594.2020.1831342 ↗
15. COVID-19: Gastrointestinal Manifestations and Potential Fecal–Oral Transmission10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.054 ↗
16. Excretion of SARS-CoV-2 through Faecal Specimens10.1080/22221751.2020.1844551 ↗
17. Prevalence and Impact of Acute Renal Impairment on COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis10.1186/s13054-020-03065-4 ↗
18. Clinical and Virological Data of the First Cases of COVID-19 in Europe: A Case Series10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30200-0 ↗
19. de Souza, S.P., Silveira, M.A.D., de Freitas Souza, B.S., Nonaka, C.K.V., de Melo, E., Cabral, J., Coelho, F., and da Hora Passos, R. (2021). Evaluation of Urine SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR as a Predictor of Acute Kidney Injury and Disease Severity in Critical COVID-19 Patients. medRxiv.10.1101/2021.01.13.21249576 ↗
20. BIOKÉ (2021, March 26). NucleoSpin Dx Virus. Available online: https://www.bioke.com/webshop/mn/740895.html.
21. bioMérieux (2021, March 26). NucliSens easyMag—User Manual. Marcy l’Etoile—France 2009. Available online: https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1377074/Biomerieux-Nuclisens-Easymag.html#manual.
22. Skobe, C. (2021, March 26). The Basics of Specimen Collection and Handling of Urine Testing. Available online: https://www.bd.com/en-us/offerings/capabilities/specimen-collection/vacutainer-educational-services-and-materials/labnotes/labnotes-14-2-2004.
23. SARS CoV-2 Detection from Upper and Lower Respiratory Tract Specimens10.1016/j.chest.2020.07.061 ↗
24. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2021, February 10). Interim Guidelines for Collecting, Handling, and Testing Clinical Specimens for COVID-19, Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/guidelines-clinical-specimens.html.
25. Performing the Nasopharyngeal and Oropharyngeal Swab for 2019-novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) Safely: How to Dress, Undress, and Technical Notes10.1002/hed.26230 ↗
26. Dynamic Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 Shedding and Neutralizing Antibody in Children with COVID-1910.1080/22221751.2020.1772677 ↗
27. Adverse Effects of Nasopharyngeal Swabs: Three-Dimensional Printed versus Commercial Swabs10.1017/ice.2020.297 ↗
28. Is Oro/Nasopharyngeal Swab for SARS-CoV-2 Detection a Safe Procedure? Complications Observed among a Case Series of 4876 Consecutive Swabs10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102758 ↗
29. Cleveland Clinic (2021, February 10). Nosebleeds (Epistaxis). Available online: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/13464-nosebleed-epistaxis.
30. Nasopharyngeal Swabs Are More Sensitive Than Oropharyngeal Swabs for COVID-19 Diagnosis and Monitoring the SARS-CoV-2 Load10.3389/fmed.2020.00334 ↗
31. Comparison of Throat Swabs and Sputum Specimens for Viral Nucleic Acid 2 Detection in 52 Cases of Novel Coronavirus (SARS-Cov-2) Infected 3 Pneumonia (COVID-19)10.1515/cclm-2020-0187 ↗
32. Thwe, P.M., and Ren, P. (2021). Analysis of Sputum/Tracheal Aspirate and Nasopharyngeal Samples for SARS-CoV-2 Detection by Laboratory-Developed Test and Panther Fusion System. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., 99.10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2020.115228 ↗
33. Usefulness of Bronchoalveolar Lavage in the Management of Patients Presenting with Lung Infiltrates and Suspect COVID-19-Associated Pneumonia: A Case Report10.1016/j.ijid.2020.05.027 ↗
34. SARS-CoV-2 RNA More Readily Detected in Induced Sputum than in Throat Swabs of Convalescent COVID-19 Patients10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30174-2 ↗
35. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Nasal Swabs: Comparison with Nasopharyngeal Swabs10.3855/jidc.12942 ↗
36. Multidisciplinary Consensus on Sputum Induction Biosafety during the COVID-19 Pandemic
37. Temporal Change of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Specimens of COVID-19 Pneumonia Patients10.4269/ajtmh.20-0551 ↗
38. Ceron, J.J., Lamy, E., Martinez-Subiela, S., Lopez-Jornet, P., Capela-Silva, F., Eckersall, P.D., and Tvarijonaviciute, A. (2020). Use of Saliva for Diagnosis and Monitoring the SARS-CoV-2: A General Perspective. J. Clin. Med., 9.10.3390/jcm9051491 ↗
39. (2021, March 26). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Processing of Sputum Specimens for Nucleic Acid Extraction 2020, Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/guidelines-clinical-specimens.html.
40. Direct Clinical Evidence Recommending the Use of Proteinase K or Dithiothreitol to Pretreat Sputum for Detection of SARS-CoV-210.3389/fmed.2020.549860 ↗
41. Recommendations for Interventional Pulmonology during COVID-19 Outbreak: A Consensus Statement from the Portuguese Pulmonology Society10.1016/j.pulmoe.2020.07.007 ↗
42. Bugalho, A., Guedes, F., Bastos, H.N., Mota, L., Rodrigues, L.V., Boléo-Tomé, J.P., and Campainha, S. (2020). Recomendações Da SPP Para a Realização de Broncoscopias Durante o Surto de COVID-19, Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia.
43. Direção-Geral da Saúde (2020). Norma n.o 015/2020 de 23 de Março 2020, Da Direção-Geral Da Saúde.
44. (2021, February 10). COVID-19 Resources Center Bronchoalveolar Lavage (BAL)|How to Collect a Sample for COVID-19 Testing. Available online: https://covid19.aischannel.com/video-tutorials-diagnosis/videos/bronchoalveolar-lavage-bal-how-to-collect-a-sample-for-covid-19-testing-lower-respiratory-tract.
45. World Health Organization (2000). Guidelines for the Collection of Clinical Specimens during Field Investigation of Outbreaks, World Health Organization.
46. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Fecal Specimens of Patients with Confirmed COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis10.1016/j.jinf.2020.06.012 ↗
47. QIAGEN (2021, March 26). QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Handbook. Available online: https://labettor.com/uploads/products/protocols/4992.pdf.
48. Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 RNA Shedding in Clinical Specimens and Clinical Characteristics of 10 Patients with COVID-19 in Macau10.7150/ijbs.45357 ↗
49. QIAGEN (2021, March 26). QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit. Available online: https://www.qiagen.com/us/products/diagnostics-and-clinical-research/sample-processing/qiaamp-viral-rna-mini-kit/?clear=true#orderinginformation.
50. Detection and Isolation of SARS-CoV-2 in Serum, Urine, and Stool Specimens of COVID-19 Patients from the Republic of Korea10.24171/j.phrp.2020.11.3.02 ↗
51. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Saliva and Characterization of Oral Symptoms in COVID-19 Patients10.1111/cpr.12923 ↗
52. Abasiyanik, M.F., Flood, B., Lin, J., Ozcan, S., Rouhani, S.J., Pyzer, A., Trujillo, J., and Zhen, C. (2020). Sensitive Detection and Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 in Saliva. medRxiv.10.1101/2020.12.04.20241059 ↗
53. Williams, E., Isles, N., Chong, B., Bond, K., Yoga, Y., Druce, J., Catton, M., and Ballard, S.A. (2020). Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Saliva: Implications for Specimen Transport and Storage | Microbiology Society. J. Med. Microbiol., 70.10.1099/jmm.0.001285 ↗
54. Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing10.1128/JCM.02486-20 ↗
55. Kandel, C., Zheng, J., McCready, J., Serbanescu, M.A., Racher, H., Desaulnier, M., Powis, J.E., Vojdani, K., Finlay, L., and Sheldrake, E. (2020). Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from Saliva as Compared to Nasopharyngeal Swabs in Outpatients. Viruses, 12.10.3390/v12111314 ↗
56. Comparative Evaluation of Nasopharyngeal Swab and Saliva Specimens for the Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Japanese Patients with COVID-1910.1016/j.jiac.2020.09.027 ↗
57. Immunochromatographic Test for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Saliva10.1016/j.jiac.2020.11.016 ↗
58. Saliva as a Noninvasive Specimen for Detection of SARS-CoV-210.1128/JCM.00776-20 ↗
59. Evaluating the Use of Posterior Oropharyngeal Saliva in a Point-of-Care Assay for the Detection of SARS-CoV-210.1080/22221751.2020.1775133 ↗
60. Analysis of Viral Load in Different Specimen Types and Serum Antibody Levels of COVID-19 Patients10.1186/s12967-020-02693-2 ↗
61. Evaluation of Saliva as an Alternative Diagnostic Specimen Source for SARS-CoV-2 Detection by RT-dPCR10.1016/j.jinf.2020.11.023 ↗
62. Viable SARS-CoV-2 in Various Specimens from COVID-19 Patients10.1016/j.cmi.2020.07.020 ↗
63. Quantitative Detection and Viral Load Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in Infected Patients10.1093/cid/ciaa345 ↗
64. SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV Viral Load Dynamics, Duration of Viral Shedding, and Infectiousness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30172-5 ↗
65. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Different Types of Clinical Specimens
66. Yamayoshi, S., Sakai-Tagawa, Y., Koga, M., Akasaka, O., Nakachi, I., Koh, H., Maeda, K., Adachi, E., Saito, M., and Nagai, H. (2020). Comparison of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19. Viruses, 12.10.3390/v12121420 ↗
67. Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of the Accuracy of Diagnostic Tests for COVID-1910.1016/j.ajic.2020.07.011 ↗
68. Alhamid, G., Tombuloglu, H., Rabaan, A.A., and Al-Suhaimi, E. (2022). SARS-CoV-2 Detection Methods: A Comprehensive Review. Saudi J. Biol. Sci., 29.10.1016/j.sjbs.2022.103465 ↗
69. Estimation of the Risk of COVID-19 Transmission through Aerosol-Generating Procedures10.17219/dmp/149342 ↗
70. Van Doorn, H.R., and Yu, H. (2020). Hunter’s Tropical Medicine and Emerging Infectious Diseases, Elsevier.