A Comparative Study Between Nasopharyngeal/Oropharyngeal, Faecal and Saliva Viral Shedding In Ghanaian COVID-19 Patients attending Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital (KATH), Kumasi from October – December, 2020

  1. Ernest Badu-Boatng
  2. Lydia Sarponmaa Asante
  3. Albert Dompreh
  4. Laud Anthony Basing W.
  5. Kwabena Adjei Asante
  6. Sylvia Karikari
  7. Albert Adubofour
  8. Chris Oppong
  9. Faustina Acheampong

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Diagnostic testing for the current SARS-CoV-2 infections involves the collection and testing of invasive pharyngeal specimens by qualified Health workers. Though fully clad in personal protective equipment, the concern is that sampling in close proximity to the patient poses as a major health hazard. The present study sought to verify if saliva or faeces could become a possible surrogate for pharyngeal samples for SARS-CoV 2 testing in suspected Ghanaian COVID-19 patients.

Objectives

To ascertain if there is SARS-CoV 2 viral shedding in the saliva and faecal samples of Ghanaian COVID-19 patients, their sensitivity and specificity as compared to pharyngeal samples.

Method

Fifty (50) recruited COVID-19 patients who have been confirmed via RT-PCR using their nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal samples and twenty (20) SARS-CoV 2 negative suspected patients each provided some faecal and saliva sample for RT-PCR analysis for SARS-CoV 2.

Results

Forty-three (43) out of the fifty (50) COVID-19 patients recruited representing 86% tested positive for SARS-CoV 2 via their saliva sample whiles all their faecal samples tested positive for SARS-CoV 2 representing 100%. The sensitivity of saliva samples was 86% whiles the specificity was 100% but the sensitivity and specificity of the faecal samples were all 100%.

Conclusion

There is indeed viral shedding of SARS-CoV 2 in the saliva and faeces of Ghanaian COVID-19 patients just like their counterparts in other parts of the world. Saliva and faeces could possibly become an alternative sample to the current in place of the invasive pharyngeal samples for SARS-CoV 2 testing in resource limited settings. Further research to explore this possibility at different testing sites with larger sample size is recommended.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.04.21262932: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Saliva and Faecal samples were collected from all confirmed COVID-19 patients whose pharyngeal swab sample already taken tested positive for SARS-CoV 2 by qualitative RT-PCR and consented to be part of this case study through a signed consent form that was read and administered to them.
    IRB: 3.9 Ethical Consideration: Ethical clearance was sought or obtained from the Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital (KATH) Institutional Review Board (KATH-IRB) through the Research and Development (R&D) Unit of the hospital.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.09.04.21262932v1 on medRxiv