Posterior Oropharyngeal Saliva Research Articles

(Invited) COVID-19 As a Technology Accelerator for High-Speed Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)

Limit of detection (LOD), speed and cost for some of the most important diagnostics tools for COVID-19 i.e., lateral flow assays (LFA), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) all benefitted from both the financial and regulatory support brought about by the pandemic. Before COVID-19, LFA was the fastest and least expensive but came with the poorest limit of detection (LOD). The slowest, most expensive but with the best (lowest) LOD was PCR. In between those two extremes, in terms of cost, LOD and speed, was an ELISA . Today, through the “COVID-19 accelerator effect” there are point of care (POC) reverse transcriptase quantitative PCR (ie., RT-qPCR) COVID-19 tests on the market that provide sample to answer in under 20 minutes, while retaining the same very low LOD but at a lower cost [1]. There are even POC PCR tests under development that come in at less than 10 minutes: beating both LFA and ELISAs in terms of time and LOD [2]. Although RT-qPCR has gained the most in overall performance, signal-amplified POC LFAs are possible now with an LOD that rivals that of an ELISA.However, implementing the next generation PCR equipment in point-of-care settings, remains very challenging because of difficulties in reaching a 10 minute or below sample to answer time , instrument complexity and cost. In this work, we discuss the engineering challenges involved in the development of high-speed microfluidic PCR equipment. To guide this review/comparison of PCR advances we introduce three parameters. The first one is the overall sample to answer time (t), the second is called lambda (λ) and is a measure of the degree to which stochastic effects interfere with obtaining analytical results and thereby setting the minimal number of copies required per volume. The third parameter gamma (γ), introduced first by Dong et al [3], is the ratio of thermal cycling time (in min) to the heat cycled sample volume (in mL). It describes the trade-off between the speed of the PCR system and the desired level of sensitivity. It can be interpreted as a system efficiency: the most efficient system heat cycles the largest amount of sample in the smallest amount of time.With these three criteria in mind we set out to suggest designs for an optimized POC reverse transcriptase (RT) quantitative qPCR or RT-qPCR system. Applications of RT-qPCR include quantifying gene expression levels, validating RNA interference (RNAi), and detecting pathogens such as viruses. The aim of this specific POC RT-qPCR system is to provide sample to answer in ten minutes or less for a respiratory pathogens panel, with an LOD of 500 copies/mL and the capability to multiplex (8 chambers) while remaining portable and low cost.Finally we introduce two of the most daunting, remaining, microfluidics challenges that both need to be tackled to implement an ideal microfluidic platform like the POC RT-qPCR system described above. One is liquid storage and the other is proportional valves on a disposable microfluidic platform. Liquid storage is essential when the assay requires repeated washes, if these washes can come from one and the same reservoir via a proportional valve, real estate is gained and system complexity is reduced. The storage issue is further complicated when the design also calls for storing lyophilized or dried reagents on the same disposable. We compare some of the most recent approaches to liquid storage and proportional valving that we believe will enable the fast POC diagnostic platforms of the future. 1. Tsang, Hin Fung, Wai Ming Stanley Leung, Lawrence Wing Chi Chan, William Chi Shing Cho, and Sze Chuen Cesar Wong. “Performance Comparison of the Cobas® Liat® and Cepheid® GeneXpert® Systems on SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Nasopharyngeal Swab and Posterior Oropharyngeal Saliva.” Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 21, no. 5 (May 4, 2021): 515–18. 2. BUCKLAND, Justin, Tom JELLICOE, Alex STOKOE, and Amaru ARAYA-WILLIAMS. “VARIABLE TEMPERATURE REACTOR, HEATER AND CONTROL CIRCUIT FOR THE SAME.” Patent Application, January 30, 2020. 3. Dong, Xiaobin, Luyao Liu, Yunping Tu, Jing Zhang, Guijun Miao, Lulu Zhang, Shengxiang Ge, Ningshao Xia, Duli Yu, and Xianbo Qiu. “Rapid PCR Powered by Microfluidics: A Quick Review under the Background of COVID-19 Pandemic.” Trends in Analytical Chemistry 143 (October 2021): 116377.

Accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF Ultra test for posterior oropharyngeal saliva for the diagnosis of paucibacillary pulmonary tuberculosis: a prospective multicenter study

ABSTRACT Background: Posterior oropharyngeal saliva (POS) is increasingly recognized as an alternative specimen for detecting respiratory pathogens. The accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF Ultra (X-Ultra), when performed on POS obtained from patients with paucibacillary pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) is unclear. Methods: We consecutively recruited adults with symptoms suggestive of pulmonary TB who were negative by both smear microscopy and Xpert MTB/RIF (X-Classic). Each participant was required to provide one bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and one POS specimen, respectively. Diagnostic performances of X-Ultra and X-Classic on POS were compared against clinical and mycobacterial reference standards. Findings: 686 participants meeting inclusion criteria were consecutively enrolled into the study. The overall diagnostic sensitivities of X-Ultra and X-Classic on POS samples were 78.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 72.8–83.8] and 56.4% (95% CI: 49.7–62.9), respectively; the specificities were 96.6% (95% CI: 94.3–98.1) for X-Ultra and 97.6 (95CI: 95.5–98.8) for X-Classic in POS specimens. Notably, the sensitivity of X-Ultra on POS was as sensitive as X-Classic on BALF against microbiological reference standard (78.9% VS 73.1%). Against clinical diagnosis as a reference standard, the sensitivities of X-Ultra and X-Classic on POS were 55.9% (95% CI: 50.5–61.2; 193/345) and 40.0% (95% CI: 34.8–45.4; 138/345), respectively. The risk of negative results with POS was dramatically increased with decreasing bacterial loads. Conclusions: The testing of POS using X-Ultra shows promise as a tool to identify patients with paucibacillary TB. Considering that bronchoscopy is a semi-invasive procedure, POS testing ahead of bronchoscopy, may decrease the need for bronchoscopic procedures, and the cost of care.

Prevalence and predictors of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among solid organ transplant recipients with confirmed infection.

It remains uncertain whether immunocompromised patients including solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients will have a robust antibody response to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We enrolled all adult SOT recipients at our center with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection who underwent antibody testing with a single commercially available anti‐nucleocapsid antibody test at least 7 days after diagnosis in a retrospective cohort. Seventy SOT recipients were studied (56% kidney, 19% lung, 14% liver ± kidney, and 11% heart ± kidney recipients). Thirty‐six (51%) had positive anti‐nucleocapsid antibody testing, and 34 (49%) were negative. Recipients of a kidney allograft were less likely to have positive antibody testing compared to those who did not receive a kidney (p = .04). In the final multivariable model, the years from transplant to diagnosis (OR 1.26, p = .002) and baseline immunosuppression with more than two agents (OR 0.26, p = .03) were significantly associated with the antibody test result, controlling for kidney transplantation. In conclusion, among SOT recipients with confirmed infection, only 51% of patients had detectable anti‐nucleocapsid antibodies, and transplant‐related variables including the level and nature of immunosuppression were important predictors. These findings raise the concern that SOT recipients with COVID‐19 may be less likely to form SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies.

Performance comparison of the Cobas® Liat® and Cepheid® GeneXpert® systems on SARS-CoV-2 detection in nasopharyngeal swab and posterior oropharyngeal saliva

ABSTRACT Background: Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) based methods such as real-time reverse transcription polymerase-chain reaction (real-time RT-PCR) are the gold standard for diagnosis of current infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The cobas® Liat® and cepheid® GeneXpert® systems are two rapid real-time RT-PCR platforms offering rapid, specimen-to-answer detection of SARS-CoV-2. Research design and methods: In this study, we compared the performance of these two systems on SARS-CoV-2 detection in 9 nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and 70 posterior oropharyngeal saliva specimens collected from 79 patients suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection between August 2020 and March 2021. Results: The Positive Percent Agreement (PPA), Negative Percent Agreement (NPA) and overall Percent Agreement (OPA) between cepheid® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay and cobas® Liat® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B assay were found to be 100%. We demonstrated an excellent overall test concordance of the Liat® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B assay and Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay. The small sample size of SARS-CoV-2 positive and weak-positive specimens is the inherent limitation of this study. Conclusions: The performance of the cobas® Liat® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B assay is equivalent to the cepheid® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection using NPS and posterior oropharyngeal saliva.

Are Posterior Oropharyngeal Saliva Specimens an Acceptable Alternative to Nasopharyngeal Sampling for the Monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 in Primary-Care Settings?

Background: The present study was set up to evaluate the efficacy of virological surveillance using posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples to monitor the COVID-19 pandemic in general practice. Methods: Posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples were collected without restriction on timing or alimentation by general practitioners from patients with acute respiratory infection (ARI) seen in consultation. Saliva samples were tested by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV-2 and 21 other respiratory pathogens. Results for SARS-CoV-2 in saliva samples were compared to results obtained using a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) collected in a certified medical laboratory before or after the ARI consultation. Results: Overall, 143 ARI patients were enrolled between 6 June 2020, and 19 January 2021. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 37.0% (n = 53) of saliva samples and in 39.0% (n = 56) of NPS. Both saliva and NPS were positive in 51 patients. Positive and negative results were concordant between saliva samples and NPS in 51 (96.2%) and in 85 (94.4%) patients, respectively, with a Cohen’s Kappa coefficient of 0.89 (95% CI 0.82–0.97, p < 0.001). Other respiratory viruses were detected in 28.0% (n = 40) of the 143 saliva samples. Conclusions: Findings suggest that saliva samples could represent an attractive alternative to NPS for surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in patients consulting for an ARI in primary care.

Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Using Specimens Other than Naso- and Oropharyngeal Swabs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The rapid and accurate testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection is still crucial to mitigate, and eventually halt, the spread of this disease. Currently, nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) are the recommended standard sampling, yet, with some limitations. Several specimens that are easier to collect are being tested as alternatives to nasal/throat swabs in nucleic acid assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This study aims to critically appraise and compare the clinical performance of RT-PCR tests using oral saliva, deep-throat saliva/ posterior oropharyngeal saliva (DTS/POS), sputum, urine, feces, and tears/conjunctival swab [CS]) against standard specimens (NPS, OPS, or a combination of both).Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov and NIPH Clinical Trial) were searched up to the 30th of December 2020. Case-control and cohort studies on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 were included. Methodological quality was assessed through the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS 2).Findings: We identified 3022 entries, 33 of which (1.1%) met all required criteria and were included for the quantitative data analysis. Saliva presented the higher accuracy, 92.1% (95% CI: 70.0-98.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 83.9% (95% CI: 77.4-88.8) and specificity of 96.4% (95% CI: 89.5-98.8). DTS/POS samples had an overall accuracy of 79.7% (95% CI: 43.3-95.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 90.1% (95% CI: 83.3-96.9) and specificity of 63.1% (95% CI: 36.8-89.3). Remaining index specimens presented uncertainty given the lack of studies available.Interpretation: Our meta-analysis shows that saliva samples from oral region provide a high sensitivity and specificity, being the best candidate as an alternative specimen to NPS/OPS for COVID-19 detection, with suitable protocols for swab-free sample collection to be determined and validated in the future. The distinction between oral and extra-oral salivary samples will be crucial since DTS/POS samples may induce a higher rate of false positives. Urine, feces, tears/CS and sputum seem unreliable for diagnosis. Saliva testing may increase testing capacity, ultimately promoting the implementation of truly deployable COVID-19 tests, which could either work at the point-of-care (e.g. hospitals, clinics) or outbreak control spots (e.g. schools, airports, and nursing homes).Funding Statement: This work was supported by national funds from FCT - Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P. through the CiiEM (project IDB/04585/2020), the Applied Molecular Biosciences Unit-UCIBIO (project UID/Multi/04378/2013), co-financed by the ERDF under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007728) and the program Research4COVID 19 (Project nr. 662).Declaration of Interests: We declare no competing interests.

Performance of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Real-Time RT-PCR Tests on Oral Rinses and Saliva Samples

Access to rapid and accurate detection of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA is essential for controlling the current global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019. In this study, the use of oral rinses (ORs) and posterior oropharyngeal saliva as an alternative to swab collection methods from symptomatic and asymptomatic health care workers for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RT-PCR was evaluated. For saliva samples, the overall agreement with oropharyngeal swabs was 93% (Ƙ = 0.84), with a sensitivity of 96.7% (95% CI, 83.3%–99.8%). The agreement between saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs was 97.7% (Ƙ = 0.93), with a sensitivity of 94.1% (95% CI, 73.0%–99.7%). ORs were compared with nasopharyngeal swabs only, with an overall agreement of 85.7% (Ƙ = 0.65), and a sensitivity of 63% (95% CI, 46.6%–77.8%). The agreement between a laboratory-developed test based on the CDC RT-PCR and two commercial assays, the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and the Cobas SARS-CoV-2, was also evaluated. The overall agreement was >90%. Finally, SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva samples was shown to be stable, with no changes in viral loads over 24 hours at both room temperature and 4°C. Although the dilution of SARS-CoV-2 in ORs precluded its acceptability as a sample type, posterior oropharyngeal saliva was an acceptable alternative sample type for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection.

Management of bacteriological specimens of patients suffering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Management of bacteriological specimens of patients suffering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

COVID-19: What do we know?

• Evidence regarding the provision of orthodontic care during the COVID-19 pandemic is examined.

Posterior Oropharyngeal Saliva for the Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put tremendous pressure on the healthcare system worldwide. Diagnostic testing remained one of the limiting factors for early identification and isolation of infected patients. This study aimed to evaluate posterior oropharyngeal saliva (POPS) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection among patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19.MethodsThe laboratory information system was searched retrospectively for all respiratory specimens and POPS requested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection between 1 February 2020 and 15 April 2020. The agreement and diagnostic performance of POPS against NPsp were evaluated.ResultsA total of 13772 specimens were identified during the study period, including 2130 POPS and 8438 nasopharyngeal specimens (NPsp). Two hundred and twenty-nine same-day POPS-NPsp paired were identified with POPS and NPsp positivity of 61.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 55.1–67.6%) and 53.3% (95% CI 46.8–59.6%). The overall, negative and positive percent agreement were 76.0% (95% CI 70.2–80.9%), 65.4% (95% CI 55.5–74.2%), 85.2% (95% CI 77.4–90.8%). Better positive percent agreement was observed in POPS-NPsp obtained within 7 days (96.6%, 95% CI 87.3–99.4%) compared with after 7 days of symptom onset (75.0%, 95% CI 61.4–85.2%). Among the 104 positive pairs, the mean difference in Cp value was 0.26 (range: 12.63 to −14.74), with an overall higher Cp value in NPsp (Pearson coefficient 0.579). No significant temporal variation was noted between the 2 specimen types.ConclusionsPOPS is an acceptable alternative specimen to nasopharyngeal specimen for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Early-Morning vs Spot Posterior Oropharyngeal Saliva for Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Implication of Timing of Specimen Collection for Community-Wide Screening.

BackgroundPosterior oropharyngeal saliva is increasingly recognized as a valid respiratory specimen for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. It is easy to collect and suitable for community-wide screening. The optimal timing of collection is currently unknown, and we speculate that an early-morning specimen before oral hygiene and breakfast would increase the diagnostic yield.MethodsPosterior oropharyngeal saliva was collected at 5 different time points within the same day from 18 patients with previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by molecular testing. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were compared.ResultsThere was an overall trend of lower Ct values from specimens collected in the early morning, with a gradual decrease of viral load towards nighttime, but reaching statistical significance only when compared with the specimens collected at bedtime. Eight out of 13 subjects had a higher viral load in the early morning than the rest of the 4 time points (before lunch, before teatime at 3 pm, before dinner, before bedtime).ConclusionsThe result suggests a diurnal variation of viral shedding from the upper respiratory tract with a trend showing higher viral load in the early morning. For community screening purposes, posterior oropharyngeal saliva could be taken throughout the day, but preferably in the early morning to maximize the yield.

Early diagnosis and rapid isolation: response to COVID-19 outbreak in Korea

Early diagnosis and rapid isolation: response to COVID-19 outbreak in Korea

Temporal profiles of viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples and serum antibody responses during infection by SARS-CoV-2: an observational cohort study

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes severe community and nosocomial outbreaks. Comprehensive data for serial respiratory viral load and serum antibody responses from patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are not yet available. Nasopharyngeal and throat swabs are usually obtained for serial viral load monitoring of respiratory infections but gathering these specimens can cause discomfort for patients and put health-care workers at risk. We aimed to ascertain the serial respiratory viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in posterior oropharyngeal (deep throat) saliva samples from patients with COVID-19, and serum antibody responses.MethodsWe did a cohort study at two hospitals in Hong Kong. We included patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. We obtained samples of blood, urine, posterior oropharyngeal saliva, and rectal swabs. Serial viral load was ascertained by reverse transcriptase quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). Antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 internal nucleoprotein (NP) and surface spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) were measured using EIA. Whole-genome sequencing was done to identify possible mutations arising during infection.FindingsBetween Jan 22, 2020, and Feb 12, 2020, 30 patients were screened for inclusion, of whom 23 were included (median age 62 years [range 37–75]). The median viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva or other respiratory specimens at presentation was 5·2 log10 copies per mL (IQR 4·1–7·0). Salivary viral load was highest during the first week after symptom onset and subsequently declined with time (slope −0·15, 95% CI −0·19 to −0·11; R2=0·71). In one patient, viral RNA was detected 25 days after symptom onset. Older age was correlated with higher viral load (Spearman's ρ=0·48, 95% CI 0·074–0·75; p=0·020). For 16 patients with serum samples available 14 days or longer after symptom onset, rates of seropositivity were 94% for anti-NP IgG (n=15), 88% for anti-NP IgM (n=14), 100% for anti-RBD IgG (n=16), and 94% for anti-RBD IgM (n=15). Anti-SARS-CoV-2-NP or anti-SARS-CoV-2-RBD IgG levels correlated with virus neutralisation titre (R2>0·9). No genome mutations were detected on serial samples.InterpretationPosterior oropharyngeal saliva samples are a non-invasive specimen more acceptable to patients and health-care workers. Unlike severe acute respiratory syndrome, patients with COVID-19 had the highest viral load near presentation, which could account for the fast-spreading nature of this epidemic. This finding emphasises the importance of stringent infection control and early use of potent antiviral agents, alone or in combination, for high-risk individuals. Serological assay can complement RT-qPCR for diagnosis.FundingRichard and Carol Yu, May Tam Mak Mei Yin, The Shaw Foundation Hong Kong, Michael Tong, Marina Lee, Government Consultancy Service, and Sanming Project of Medicine.

Evaluating the use of posterior oropharyngeal saliva in a point-of-care assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2

ABSTRACT During the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, logistic problems associated with specimen collection limited the SARS-CoV-2 testing, especially in the community. In this study, we assessed the use of posterior oropharyngeal saliva as specimens for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in an automated point-of-care molecular assay. Archived nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and posterior oropharyngeal saliva specimens of 58 COVID-19 patients were tested with the Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in either NPS or saliva specimens of all patients. Among them, 84.5% (49/58) tested positive in both NPS and saliva, 10.3% (6/58) tested positive in NPS only, and 5.2% (3/58) tested positive in saliva only. No significant difference in the detection rate was observed between NPS and saliva (McNemar’s test p = 0.5078). The detection rate was slightly higher for N2 (NPS 94.8% and Saliva 93.1%) than that of the E gene target (Saliva: 89.7% vs 82.8%) on both specimen types. Significantly earlier median Ct value was observed for NPS comparing to that of saliva on both E (26.8 vs 29.7, p = 0.0002) and N2 gene target (29.3 vs 32.3, p = 0.0002). The median Ct value of E gene target was significantly earlier than that of the N2 gene target for both NPS (26.8 vs 29.3, p < 0.0001) and saliva (29.7 vs 32.3, p < 0.0001). In conclusion, posterior oropharyngeal saliva and NPS were found to have similar detection rates in the point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Since posterior oropharyngeal saliva can be collected easily, the use of saliva as an alternative specimen type for SARS-CoV-2 detection is recommended.

Safe Conduct of Professional Examinations During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Hong Kong: A Descriptive Study

Background: Many medical schools and specialist accreditation bodies worldwide have cancelled or postponed professional examinations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In Hong Kong, final-year medical students are not required to sit public examinations to qualify; rather rely on internal assessment. We therefore proceeded to administer all scheduled final-year statutory examinations during the months of April and May 2020. Methods: All 206 graduating medical students sat both written and objective structured clinical (OSCE) examinations under conditions of strict infection control, including self-reported health declaration forms (HDF), temperature screening and viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. Findings: Between 201 and 203 students who submitted a clean HDF were permitted to attend the examination venues. Fifteen (7·3%) students were found to have a tympanic temperature of ≥37·5°C on April 1, 2020, but their posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples taken on the same day were COVID-19 PCR-negative. Another 2 and 1 students were found to have a temperature ≥37·5°C on April 3, 2020 and April 9, 2020 respectively, but who were also tested COVID-19 PCR-negative. The tympanic temperatures of these 18 candidates were significantly higher than the rest throughout all examination days of the written (p≤0·0014) and OSCE (p≤0·039) examinations (except on April 15, 2020), suggestive of a higher basal body temperature. All staff members and participating patients with close contacts with the candidates/staff were free from COVID-19 before and after all examinations, up to 14 days post hoc. Interpretation: Rigorous clinical professional examinations could be safely conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic provided stringent infection control measures were followed. The choice of body temperature cutoff could significantly impact the assessment process for which we propose a number of mitigating measures for future reference. Funding Statement: None Declaration of Interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Ethics Approval Statement: This cohort study was approved by HKUMed and designed by the investigators.

Exchange Transfusion Methods

<h3>SUMMARY</h3> <h3>Background</h3> The rapid and accurate testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection is still crucial to mitigate, and eventually halt, the spread of this disease. Currently, nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) are the recommended standard sampling, yet, with some limitations. Several specimens that are easier to collect are being tested as alternatives to nasal/throat swabs in nucleic acid assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This study aims to critically appraise and compare the clinical performance of RT-PCR tests using oral saliva, deep-throat saliva/ posterior oropharyngeal saliva (DTS/POS), sputum, urine, feces, and tears/conjunctival swab [CS]) against standard specimens (NPS, OPS, or a combination of both). <h3>Methods</h3> In this systematic review and meta-analysis, five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov and NIPH Clinical Trial) were searched up to the 30^th of December 2020. Case-control and cohort studies on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 were included. Methodological quality was assessed through the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS 2). <h3>Findings</h3> We identified 3022 entries, 33 of which (1.1%) met all required criteria and were included for the quantitative data analysis. Saliva presented the higher accuracy, 92.1% (95% CI: 70.0-98.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 83.9% (95% CI: 77.4-88.8) and specificity of 96.4% (95% CI: 89.5-98.8). DTS/POS samples had an overall accuracy of 79.7% (95% CI: 43.3-95.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 90.1% (95% CI: 83.3-96.9) and specificity of 63.1% (95% CI: 36.8-89.3). Remaining index specimens presented uncertainty given the lack of studies available. <h3>Interpretation</h3> Our meta-analysis shows that saliva samples from oral region provide a high sensitivity and specificity, being the best candidate as an alternative specimen to NPS/OPS for COVID-19 detection, with suitable protocols for swab-free sample collection to be determined and validated in the future. The distinction between oral and extra-oral salivary samples will be crucial since DTS/POS samples may induce a higher rate of false positives. Urine, feces, tears/CS and sputum seem unreliable for diagnosis. Saliva testing may increase testing capacity, ultimately promoting the implementation of truly deployable COVID-19 tests, which could either work at the point-of-care (e.g. hospitals, clinics) or outbreak control spots (e.g. schools, airports, and nursing homes). <h3>Funding</h3> Nothing to declare. <h3>Research in context</h3> <h3>Evidence before this study</h3> The lack of systematized data on the accuracy performance of alternative specimens for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 (against the standard NPS/OPS). The ever-growing number of studies available, made this updated systematic review timely and of the utmost importance <h3>Added value of this study</h3> Our meta-analysis shows that saliva samples from the oral region provide a high sensitivity and specificity, being the best candidate as an alternative specimen to NPS/OPS for COVID-19 detection, with suitable protocols for swab-free sample collection to be determined and validated in the future. The distinction between oral and extra-oral salivary samples will be crucial since DTS/POS samples may induce a higher rate of false positives. <h3>Implications of all the available evidence</h3> Saliva samples simply taken from the oral cavity are promising alternatives to the currently used nasal/throat swabs. Saliva specimens can be self-collected, mitigate the discomfort caused by sampling, reduce the transmission risk and increase testing capacity. Therefore, the validation of this alternative specimen will promote the implementation of truly deployable rapid tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection at the point-of-care or outbreak spots.