ABSTRACT
In children, the gold standard for the detection of pneumococcal carriage is conventional culture of a nasopharyngeal swab. Saliva, however, has a history as one of the most sensitive methods for surveillances on pneumococcal colonisation and has recently been shown to improve carriage detection in older age groups. Here, we compared the sensitivity of nasopharyngeal and saliva samples from PCV7-vaccinated 24-month-old children for pneumococcal carriage detection using conventional and molecular diagnostic methods.
Nasopharyngeal and saliva samples were collected from 288 24-month-old children during the autumn/winter, 2012/2013. All samples were first processed by conventional diagnostic techniques. Next, DNA extracted from all plate growth was tested by qPCR for the presence of pneumococcal genes piaB and lytA and a subset of serotypes.
By culture, 164/288 (57%) nasopharyngeal swabs tested positive for pneumococcus, but detection was not possible from saliva due to abundant polymicrobial growth on culture-plates. Molecular methods increased the number of children pneumococci-positive to 172/288 (60%) when testing culture-enriched saliva and to 212/288 (73%) when testing nasopharyngeal samples. Altogether, by molecular methods 239/288 (83%) infants were positive, with qPCR-based carriage detection of culture-enriched nasopharyngeal swabs significantly detecting more carriers compared to either conventional culture (p<0.001) or qPCR-detection of saliva (p<0.001). However, 27/240 (11%) carriers were positive only in saliva, significantly contributing to the overall number of carriers detected (p<0.01).
While testing nasopharyngeal swabs with qPCR proved most sensitive for pneumococcal detection in infants, saliva sampling could be considered as complementary to provide additional information on carriage and serotypes which may not be detected in the nasopharynx and may be particularly useful in longitudinal studies, requiring repeated sampling events.
Competing Interest Statement
ALW has received consulting and/or advisory board fees from Pfizer, RADx, Diasorin, PPS Health, Co-Diagnostics, Filtration Group, and Global Diagnostic Systems for work unrelated to this project, and is Principal Investigator on research grants with Pfizer, Merck, Flambeau Diagnostics, Tempus Labs, and The Rockefeller Foundation to Yale University. MAvH declares to have received research grants from Pfizer. EAMS declares to have received research grants from Pfizer and GSK and fees paid to the institution for advisory boards and participation in independent data monitoring committees for Pfizer and GSK. KT declares to have received research grants from Pfizer and GSK and fees for advisory boards for Pfizer, all paid to the home institution. All other authors report no potential conflicts.
Funding Statement
The work was funded by the Dutch Ministry of Health. Unrestricted grant support for molecular microbiology was provided by Pfizer (the Netherlands), through investigator-initiated research grants (WS2312079 and WS2312119 to EAMS and KT).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by METC Noord-Holland (NL40288.094.12) and conducted in accordance with the European Statements for Good Clinical Practice and the declaration of Helsinki of the World Health Medical Association. Written informed consent was obtained from all parents.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
