A Large Cohort Study of SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Saliva: A Non-Invasive Alternative Diagnostic Test for Patients with Bleeding Disorders

Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections is mostly based on the nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS). However, this collection is invasive and uncomfortable, especially for children and patients with coagulopathies, whose NPS collection often causes bleeding. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness and accuracy of saliva for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in patients presenting bleeding disorders. Samples of NPS, oropharyngeal swabs (OPS), and saliva were collected simultaneously from 1159 hospitalized patients with hematological diseases and from 524 healthcare workers, both symptomatic and asymptomatic for SARS-CoV-2. All samples were evaluated for SARS-CoV-2 by qRT-PCR. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in NPS, OPS and saliva from 16.9%, 14.4% and 15.6% individuals, respectively. Tests in saliva showed sensitivity, specificity, and overall agreement of 73.3%, 96.9% and 92.7% (=0.74), respectively. Salivary tests had good accuracy (AUC = 0.7) for discriminating negative and positive qRT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2. Higher sensitivity was observed in symptomatic than in non-symptomatic patients, as well as in healthy subjects than in patients with hematological disease, in both OPS and saliva. The mean viral load in NPS was significantly higher than in OPS and in saliva samples (p < 0.001). Saliva is a good diagnostic tool to detect SARS-CoV-2, especially among patients symptomatic for COVID-19, and is a valuable specimen for mass screening of hospitalized patients with hematological diseases, especially for those that with bleeding disorders

Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 among blood donors in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 among blood donors in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. METHODS: Data were collected on 2,857 blood donors from April 14 to 27, 2020. This study reports crude prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, population weighted prevalence for the state, and prevalence adjusted for test sensitivity and specificity. Logistic regression models were used to establish the correlates of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. For the analysis, we considered collection period and site, sociodemographic characteristics, and place of residence. RESULTS: The proportion of positive tests for SARS-Cov-2, without any adjustment, was 4.0% (95%CI 3.3–4.7%), and the weighted prevalence was 3.8% (95%CI 3.1–4.5%). We found lower estimates after adjusting for test sensitivity and specificity: 3.6% (95%CI 2.7–4.4%) for the non-weighted prevalence, and 3.3% (95%CI 2.6–4.1%) for the weighted prevalence. Collection period was the variable most significantly associated with crude prevalence: the later the period, the higher the prevalence. Regarding sociodemographic characteristics, the younger the blood donor, the higher the prevalence, and the lower the education level, the higher the odds of testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 antibody. We found similar results for weighted prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings comply with some basic premises: the increasing trend over time, as the epidemic curve in the state is still on the rise; and the higher prevalence among both the youngest, for moving around more than older age groups, and the less educated, for encountering more difficulties in following social distancing recommendations. Despite the study limitations, we may infer that Rio de Janeiro is far from reaching the required levels of herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2.