Richard A. Martinello

In this letter, the investigators report that saliva specimens and nasopharyngeal swab specimens had similar sensitivity in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in both symptomatic and asymptomatic persons.

Abstract Rapid and accurate SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing is essential for controlling the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The current gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis is real-time RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal swabs. Low sensitivity, exposure risks to healthcare workers, and global shortages of swabs and personal protective equipment, however, necessitate the validation of new diagnostic approaches. Saliva is a promising candidate for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics because (1) collection is minimally invasive and can reliably be self-administered and (2) saliva has exhibited comparable sensitivity to nasopharyngeal swabs in detection of other respiratory pathogens, including endemic human coronaviruses, in previous studies. To validate the use of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection, we tested nasopharyngeal and saliva samples from confirmed COVID-19 patients and self-collected samples from healthcare workers on COVID-19 wards. When we compared SARS-CoV-2 detection from patient-matched nasopharyngeal and saliva samples, we found that saliva yielded greater detection sensitivity and consistency throughout the course of infection. Furthermore, we report less variability in self-sample collection of saliva. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that saliva is a viable and more sensitive alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs and could enable at-home self-administered sample collection for accurate large-scale SARS-CoV-2 testing.

OBJECTIVE: Respiratory tract infections are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Recently, a newly identified human respiratory virus, human metapneumovirus (hMPV), was reported by investigators in the Netherlands. We sought to determine whether hMPV was circulating in our community and to determine the clinical features associated with hMPV infection. METHODS: Respiratory specimens from children who were younger than 5 years and had a negative result for respiratory syncytial virus, influenza A and B, parainfluenza viruses 1 to 3, and adenovirus by direct fluorescent antibody test were screened for hMPV by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. Samples were collected from October 30, 2001, to February 28, 2002. RESULTS: Of the 296 patients screened, 19 (6.4%) had evidence of hMPV infection. hMPV was identified in patients with either upper or lower respiratory tract infection or both. Clinical manifestations included wheezing, hypoxia, and abnormal findings on chest radiographs (eg, focal infiltrates, peribronchial cuffing). Nosocomial infection occurred in at least 1 patient. CONCLUSIONS: hMPV is circulating in the United States and is associated with respiratory tract disease in patients with respiratory illnesses not caused by respiratory syncytial virus, influenza, parainfluenza viruses, and adenovirus. Additional studies are required to define the epidemiology and the extent of disease in the general population caused by hMPV.

OBJECTIVE: Influenza vaccine receipt by healthcare workers (HCWs) is important because HCWs are at risk for occupational exposure to influenza and may act as vectors in the nosocomial transmission of influenza. HCWs were surveyed to determine whether belief in commonly held influenza vaccine misconceptions was associated with influenza vaccine acceptance. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A large urban teaching hospital. METHOD: A self-administered survey was used to assess nursing and physician staff influenza vaccine knowledge, current vaccination status, and potential reasons for vaccine declination. RESULTS: Two hundred twelve of 215 surveys were completed. The overall influenza vaccination rate was 73%. Physician staff were significantly more likely to have been vaccinated compared with nursing staff (82% vs 62%, respectively; P = .0009). HCWs answering the 5 influenza vaccine basic knowledge questions correctly were significantly more likely to have been vaccinated than those responding incorrectly to any question (84% vs 64%, respectively; P = .002). This association was present in the nursing group where 80% of those answering the knowledge questions correctly were vaccinated, but only 49% of those answering incorrectly were vaccinated (P = .000005). However, in the physician group, there was no significant difference in the influenza vaccination rates between those answering correctly and those answering incorrectly (P = .459). CONCLUSION: Belief in commonly held influenza vaccine misconceptions was significantly associated with influenza vaccine declination among nursing staff and may act as a barrier to greater rates of influenza vaccination. Reasons for influenza vaccine nonreceipt may differ between nursing and physician staff.