Search

BACKGROUND: Saliva reverse transcriptase-Polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is an attractive alternative for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in adults with less known in children. METHODS: Children with coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms were prospectively enrolled in a 1-month comparative clinical trial of saliva and nasopharyngeal (NP) RT-PCR. Detection rates and sensitivities of saliva and NP RT-PCR were compared as well as discordant NP and saliva RT-PCR findings including viral loads (VLs). RESULTS: Of 405 patients enrolled, 397 patients had 2 tests performed. Mean age was 12.7 years (range, 1.2-17.9). Sensitivity of saliva was 85.2% (95% confidence interval: 78.2%-92.1%) when using NP as the standard; sensitivity of NP was 94.5% (89.8%-99.2%) when saliva was considered as the standard. For a NP RT-PCR VL threshold of ≥103 and ≥104 copies/mL, sensitivity of saliva increases to 88.7% and 95.2%, respectively. Sensitivity of saliva and NP swabs was, respectively, 89.5% and 95.3% in patient with symptoms less than 4 days (P = 0.249) and 70.0% and 95.0% in those with symptoms ≥4-7 days (P = 0.096). The 15 patients who had an isolated positive NP RT-PCR were younger (P = 0.034), had lower NP VL (median 5.6 × 103 vs. 3.9 × 107, P < 0.001), and could not drool saliva at the end of the sampling (P = 0.002). VLs were lower with saliva than with NP RT-PCR (median 8.7 cp/mL × 104; interquartile range 1.2 × 104-5.2 × 105; vs. median 4.0 × 107 cp/mL; interquartile range, 8.6 × 105-1 × 108; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While RT-PCR testing on saliva performed more poorly in younger children and likely after longer duration of symptoms, saliva remains an attractive alternative to NP swabs in children.

Saliva is a matrix which may act as a vector for pathogen transmission and may serve as a possible proxy for SARS-CoV-2 contagiousness. Therefore, the possibility of detection of intracellular SARS-CoV-2 in saliva by means of fluorescence in situ hybridization is tested, utilizing probes targeting the antisense or sense genomic RNA of SARS-CoV-2. This method was applied in a pilot study with saliva samples collected from healthy persons and those presenting with mild or moderate COVID-19 symptoms. In all participants, saliva appeared a suitable matrix for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Among the healthy, mild COVID-19-symptomatic and moderate COVID-19-symptomatic persons, 0%, 90% and 100% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, respectively. Moreover, the procedure allows for simultaneous measurement of viral load (‘presence’, sense genomic SARS-CoV-2 RNA) and viral replication (‘activity’, antisense genomic SARS-CoV-2 RNA) and may yield qualitative results. In addition, the visualization of DNA in the cells in saliva provides an additional cytological context to the validity and interpretability of the test results. The method described in this pilot study may be a valuable diagnostic tool for detection of SARS-CoV-2, distinguishing between ‘presence’ (viral load) and ‘activity’ (viral replication) of the virus. Moreover, the method potentially gives more information about possible contagiousness.

We report on a case of imported human rabies in Portugal, in July 2011 in a woman who presented initially complaining of back pain, without relating exposure to animal bites. She had travelled from Portugal to Bissau, Guinea-Bissau, in April where she had been bitten by a dog on 1 May. She was diagnosed with rabies on 26 July and died two weeks later in spite of being treated following the Milwaukee protocol.