Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Sep 3;9(1):e0033621.
doi: 10.1128/Spectrum.00336-21. Epub 2021 Aug 25.

Use of Saliva Swab for Detection of Influenza Virus in Patients Admitted to an Emergency Department

Alicia Galar  1   2 , Pilar Catalán  1   2 , Lara Vesperinas  1   2 , Iria Miguens  3 , Ioana Muñoz  3 , Alejandro García-Espona  3 , José Antonio Sevillano  3   4 , Juan Antonio Andueza  3   4 , Emilio Bouza  1   2   5   4 , Patricia Muñoz  1   2   5   4
Affiliations

Use of Saliva Swab for Detection of Influenza Virus in Patients Admitted to an Emergency Department

Alicia Galar et al. Microbiol Spectr. .

Abstract

Nasopharyngeal (NP) specimens are commonly used for the detection of influenza, but saliva swabs are easier to obtain and cause less discomfort to the patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of saliva swab specimens for the diagnosis of influenza compared with NP specimens. Influenza virus detection rate in saliva and NP swabs was compared in adult patients admitted to an emergency department from January to March 2020, using the Xpert Xpress Flu/respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) test. Cycle threshold (CT) values were evaluated in all the cases. Among the 82 patients recruited, 19 had an influenza-positive diagnostic test result (11 influenza A and 8 influenza B). Overall, the agreement between saliva and NP swabs results was 97.6% (80/82; κ = 0.929; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.832 to 1.0). There was no significant difference in the influenza detection rate between saliva swab and NP specimens (20.7% [17/82] versus 23.2% [19/82]; P = 0.5). There were only two discordant results (influenza B in an NP and false negative in a saliva sample). Manual inspection of the amplification curves showed that influenza RNA had been amplified in saliva with high CTs (CT of 40) that the test reported as a negative result. The overall sensitivity and specificity for saliva was 89.5% (73.0% to 100%) and 100% (99.2% to 100%), respectively. In all the cases, the same influenza virus (A/B) was detected. Median CT values were significantly lower in NP (31; interquartile range [IQR], 21.0 to 32.0) than in saliva (33; IQR, 23.0 to 38.0) (P = 0.001) specimens. Saliva swabs have high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of influenza virus by the Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV test and a high overall agreement and CT correlation with NP specimens. Saliva swab is a feasible specimen type for influenza testing that might be easily self-collected with minimal equipment and discomfort. IMPORTANCE Early detection of influenza virus is important for guiding antiviral and antibacterial treatment for infection control and public health measures. We have observed that saliva swab specimens have high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of influenza by the Xpert Xpress Flu/respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) test and high overall agreement and CT correlation with nasopharyngeal specimens. Saliva swab may therefore be a feasible specimen type for influenza testing that can be easily self-collected with minimal equipment and discomfort.

Keywords: diagnosis; emergency department; influenza; nasopharyngeal swab; saliva swab.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Sueki A, Matsuda K, Yamaguchi A, Uehara M, Sugano M, Uehara T, Honda T. 2016. Evaluation of saliva as diagnostic materials for influenza virus infection by PCR-based assays. Clin Chim Acta 453:71–74. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2015.12.006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chiarella FC, Culebras E, Fuentes-Ferrer ME, Picazo JJ. 2016. Evaluation of the Alere i Influenza A&B assay for rapid identification of influenza A and influenza B viruses. J Med Microbiol 65:456–461. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.000249. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gonzalez-Del Vecchio M, Catalan P, de Egea V, Rodriguez-Borlado A, Martos C, Padilla B, Rodriguez-Sanchez B, Bouza E. 2015. An algorithm to diagnose influenza infection: evaluating the clinical importance and impact on hospital costs of screening with rapid antigen detection tests. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 34:1081–1085. doi: 10.1007/s10096-015-2328-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lopez Roa P, Catalan P, Giannella M, Garcia de Viedma D, Sandonis V, Bouza E. 2011. Comparison of real-time RT-PCR, shell vial culture, and conventional cell culture for the detection of the pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in hospitalized patients. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 69:428–431. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2010.11.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nguyen Van JC, Camelena F, Dahoun M, Pilmis B, Mizrahi A, Lourtet J, Behillil S, Enouf V, Le Monnier A. 2016. Prospective evaluation of the Alere i Influenza A&B nucleic acid amplification versus Xpert Flu/RSV. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 85:19–22. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2015.11.012. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances