Next Article in Journal
The Role of Structure MRI in Diagnosing Autism
Next Article in Special Issue
SARS-CoV-2 Sero-Surveillance in Greece: Evolution over Time and Epidemiological Attributes during the Pre-Vaccination Pandemic Era
Previous Article in Journal
The Prevalence of MRI-Defined Sacroiliitis and Classification of Spondyloarthritis in Patients with Acute Anterior Uveitis: A Longitudinal Single-Centre Cohort Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
First Case of COVID-19 Treated with Monoclonal Anti-Spike Antibodies in a Patient with Cystic Fibrosis in Romania
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

SARS-CoV-2 Saliva Mass Screening in Primary Schools: A 10-Week Sentinel Surveillance Study in Munich, Germany

1
Department Task Force Infectious Diseases, Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Lazarettstrasse 67, 80636 Munich, Germany
2
Dr. von Hauner Children’s Hospital, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Lindwurmstrasse 4, 80337 Munich, Germany
3
German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner Site Munich, 80337 Munich, Germany
4
Gesundheitsreferat Stadt München (GSR)/Public Health Department Munich, 80335 Munich, Germany
5
Eurofins LifeCodexx GmbH, 78467 Konstanz, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Diagnostics 2022, 12(1), 162; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010162
Submission received: 21 December 2021 / Revised: 6 January 2022 / Accepted: 7 January 2022 / Published: 11 January 2022

Abstract

:
Representative, actively collected surveillance data on asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in primary schoolchildren remain scarce. We evaluated the feasibility of a saliva mass screening concept and assessed infectious activity in primary schools. During a 10-week period from 3 March to 21 May 2021, schoolchildren and staff from 17 primary schools in Munich participated in the sentinel surveillance, cohort study. Participants were tested using the Salivette® system, testing was supervised by trained school staff, and samples were processed via reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). We included 4433 participants: 3752 children (median age, 8 [range, 6–13] years; 1926 girls [51%]) and 681 staff members (median age, 41 [range, 14–71] years; 592 women [87%]). In total, 23,905 samples were processed (4640 from staff), with participants representing 8.3% of all primary schoolchildren in Munich. Only eight cases were detected: Five out of 3752 participating children (0.13%) and three out of 681 staff members (0.44%). There were no secondary cases. In conclusion, supervised Salivette® self-sampling was feasible, reliable, and safe and thus constituted an ideal method for SARS-CoV-2 mass screenings in primary schoolchildren. Our findings suggest that infectious activity among asymptomatic primary schoolchildren and staff was low. Primary schools appear to continue to play a minor role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 despite high community incidence rates.

1. Introduction

The role of young children and primary schools in the spread of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been a focus of public debate. Due to an initial lack of evidence, scientists and policy makers recommended and implemented school closures to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. However, several studies provided evidence that young children in educational institutions are not primary drivers of the pandemic and that infectious activity in schools is rather associated with levels of community transmission [1,2,3,4]. Hence, closures of these facilities have only minor effects on the spread of SARS-CoV-2 [5,6] while affecting children’s and families’ well-being [7,8].
The United Nations (UNICEF) estimate that 168 million children worldwide have not attended school between March 2020 and February 2021 and that 214 million have missed at least 75% of classroom instruction time [9]. There have been warnings that the distress of the pandemic and school closures, in particular, may have severe short- and long-term negative effects on children’s physical and mental health [7,10]. Experts have observed an increase in depression symptoms [8], rising obesity rates [11,12], and a severe learning loss, with children from less educated families being disproportionally more affected [13].
At the same time, children usually do not suffer from severe clinical disease unless underlying conditions are present [14]. Reports on the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant (B.1.1.7) as well as recent data on the Delta variant (B.1.617.2), suggest no alteration in the severity of disease in children [15,16].
To assess the role of young children in the pandemic and to facilitate the safe operation of educational facilities, from June to November 2020 we investigated the feasibility of a SARS-CoV-2 surveillance tailored to primary schools, kindergartens, and nurseries [1]. While the integration of a testing scheme into the daily routine of these facilities was successful, the concept depended on a large team of medical staff, as samples were collected using oropharyngeal swabs. Consequently, this first feasibility study included a rather small sample size. To allow for larger sample sizes without additional medical staff, in an accompanying sub-study, we evaluated the Salivette® saliva collection system for children aged 3 to 11 [17]. Accordingly, saliva has been shown to be a well-established diagnostic specimen for detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA [18,19,20,21,22], a child-friendly sampling alternative to swab-based methods [23,24] and one potentially suitable for the mass screening of children [25]. The findings in our evaluation of the Salivette® system confirmed that assessment [17].
The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of saliva mass screening by implementing a saliva self-sampling concept for primary schoolchildren and staff. In addition, we set out to monitor infectious activity in primary schools during a time of high SARS-CoV-2 community incidence.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Conduct

This was a prospective, uncontrolled, sentinel surveillance, cohort study on the incidence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections as determined by RT-qPCR in primary schools. Between 3 March 2021 and 21 May 2021, we tested the saliva of students and staff of randomly selected public primary schools in Munich, Germany. Participants were recruited through participating schools’ principals and teaching staff, and an information video was created. Participation was voluntary. The study was analyzed and reported according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline (https://www.strobe-statement.org, last accessed on 21 December 2021).

2.2. Ethical Statement

The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich under project no. 21-0233. Written informed consent was obtained using an online registration and consenting platform meeting all data protection requirements as per European law.

2.3. Eligibility Criteria and Study Procedure

Students and staff were eligible for enrollment if they met the following criteria: (1) child (male or female) aged 5 to 13 years, (2) staff (male or female) without age limit, (3) child attending or staff working in the randomly selected primary school, (4) written consent obtained. Exclusion criteria were symptoms compatible with COVID-19, food or drink intake within 30 min prior to sampling, and incongruent or erroneous input of personal data into the registration portal.
Participants’ and/or their legal guardians’ consent was obtained during the online registration process on a multi-language registration website (www.muenchner-virenwaechter.de, last accessed on 21 December 2021). For each test, an individual QR/ID code was created. Selected staff members were trained during study initiation visits to supervise the sample collection. Staff members assigned the participants’ QR/ID code to a Salivette® tube. Participants subsequently kept the Salivette® absorbent cotton roll in their mouth for a minimum of two minutes before placing it in the tube and closing it with the lid. Participants then deposited the sample into a collection container. The registration and sampling process were contactless, avoiding any close-distance interaction between staff and participants and between participants. Before leaving the test site, disinfection of hands was performed. Participants received their results electronically (via text message and email) on the same day. Positive results were simultaneously reported to the Public Health Department Munich (GSR).
During the study period, school classes/groups were halved, and children usually attended in-classroom teaching on alternating days. In study week 5, compulsory nasal rapid antigen self-testing was introduced as a prerequisite for joining in-classroom teaching at primary schools in Munich. Students at schools participating in the study were free to choose saliva testing instead. The test frequency was determined by schools with a minimum of one test day per week. Regarding individual participation, no fixed test frequency was specified.

2.4. Laboratory Analysis

For saliva collection, the neutral Salivette® with an absorbent cotton roll was used (SARSTEDT AG and Co KG, Nuembrecht, Germany; product number 51.1534). Salivette® tubes were compatible with immediate processing in the laboratory.
The processing parameters were optimized during the study ramp-up phase until 1600× g for 2 min at room temperature was established. The mean saliva volume was assessed by measuring the processed and stored samples collected during study week 10, using a single channel pipette. After processing, samples were stored at 4 °C temperature for a maximum of 30 days before being disposed.
RNA was extracted using the GSD NovaPrime® IVD RNA Extraction AE1 kit on KingFisher Flex 96 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). RT-qPCR was carried out using the CE-IVD ViroBOAR MD v1.0 kit. An analysis of RNaseP was conducted to validate the presence of human sample material and to monitor the presence of RT-qPCR inhibitors. Each sample was analyzed according to the classification criteria outlined in Table 1 online.
Positive samples were analyzed by next-generation-sequencing (NGS) on Illumina instruments (2× 150 bp) using the NGS ARTIC protocol (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA).

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive data are shown as median/mean, range and interquartile ranges (IQR) for continuous variables. Categorical variables are displayed as total and relative frequencies. The incidence in children and staff was compared using Fisher’s exact test. Positive results were graphically displayed in relation to time, 7-day incidence rates in the general population in the City of Munich and in the age group of 6 to 11 years. In addition, the distribution of specific SARS-CoV-2 variants during the study period was graphically displayed. Analyses were based on proprietary surveillance data by the Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority. Calculations were performed in RStudio software, version 4.0.2, Python, version 3.7. and Excel 2016. Surveillance data was analyzed using SurvNet@RKI (German notification software; www.rki.de, last accessed on 21 December 2021).

2.6. Contact Tracing

Confirmed cases detected in the study were reported to local health authorities (GSR), which subsequently followed standard contact tracing protocols.

2.7. Online Questionnaire

At the end of study week 10, participating schools’ principals were asked to complete an online questionnaire on infection control measures in place at their primary school during the study period as well as an evaluation of the study concept. Online questionnaires were carried out using LimeSurvey, Version 3.22.22.

3. Results

3.1. Study Population

The study included 4433 participants (Table 1): 3752 children (median age, 8 [range, 6–13] years; 1926 girls [51%]) and 681 staff members (median age, 41 [range, 14–71] years; 592 women [87%]). Seventeen schools, representing 12.8% of primary schools, and 3752 children, representing 8.3% of public primary schoolchildren in Munich, participated in the study. The weekly number of participants, processed samples and test frequency are documented in Table 2.

3.2. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infection by RT-qPCR

Out of 24,282 samples, 23,905 saliva specimens were processed, 19,265 from children and 4640 from staff (Table 2). A total of 377 samples were not suitable for processing due to an insufficient saliva volume (<300 μL), sampling errors, technical processing issues or misuse (Supplementary Figure S1). Over the 10-week study period, eight SARS-CoV-2 cases were detected (Figure 1). Five out of 3752 repeatedly screened children (0.13% [95% CI 0.06–0.31%]) and three out of 681 repeatedly screened staff members (0.44% [95% CI 0.15–1.29%]) tested positive on RT-qPCR. The comparison between the incidence in children and staff showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.111). Cases were detected in weeks 3, 4, 5, and 6. In addition, we report three samples from children with very high Ct-values which, according to the study protocol, were classified as “inconclusive” (Supplementary Table S1). No secondary infections were detected.

3.3. Background Incidence

During the study period, the 7-day incidence rates in the general population in Munich ranged from 41 to 176 per 100,000 persons and from 43 to 252 per 100,000 persons in the age group of 6 to 11 years (Figure 1).

3.4. NGS and Distribution of SARS-CoV-2 Variants

Via NGS, four out of eight positive samples were classified as Alpha variant B.1.1.7, two as variant B.1., one as variant B.1.1, and one sample yielded no conclusive result. The Alpha variant accounted for an average of 62.1% of SARS-CoV-2 positive samples in Munich during the study period (Supplementary Figure S2).

3.5. Saliva Volume Measurement

The volume measurement of harvested saliva was conducted for 4515 samples, representing 18.6% of all study samples, and it showed a mean volume of 1554 μL (Table 3).

3.6. Infection Control Measure and Evaluation of Study Concept

At all participating schools, infection control measures were in place during the study period. Supplementary Table S2 contains a detailed overview of these measures. Supplementary Table S3 shows the results of the study evaluation by participating schools.

4. Discussion

In this large-scale, sentinel surveillance study, only eight out of 23,905 samples from 4433 participants in 17 primary schools tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Five cases in 3752 children (0.13%) and three cases in 681 staff members (0.44%) were detected. Our findings are in line with other reports investigating infectious activity in primary schools [1,2,4,26]. However, when discussing the generalizability of these results, the individual study design, community incidence and dominant variants of concern (VOCs) at the time of investigation need to be considered. Ladhani and colleagues [4] reported that three out of 40,501 swabs from 11,966 participants had SARS-CoV-2 infection but covered three separate time periods over six months in 2020. Ismail and colleagues documented few SARS-CoV-2 infections in primary schools, especially when compared to other institutions like hospitals, care homes or other workplace settings [2]. We detected no secondary infections or outbreaks in participating schools. This may be attributed to the effectiveness of infection control measures in place during the study period and is in line with findings by Hershow and colleagues, who reported low secondary attack rates in primary schools while infection control measures, like wearing masks indoors, were in place [26]. Due to the emergence of new variants of concern, the findings summarized above need to be continuously re-evaluated by conducting further studies in educational facilities.
As previously described, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in primary schools has been associated with community incidence [1,2,3,4]. Prior to the introduction of mandatory testing, the incidence rates in children aged 6 to 11 years were lower than in the general population in Munich (Figure 1). Upon the return to schools in study week 5, following the Easter break and simultaneous with the start of mandatory testing, a peak in incidence in the age group of 6 to 11 years could be observed. During the same period, six out of a total of eight infections were detected in the study. We deduct that a large share of transmissions leading to these cases did not occur in a school setting, due to the incubation period of SARS-CoV-2, but could instead be traced back to private, family and household settings during the break in the weeks prior to detection. In addition, during this time, we observed a peak in community incidence.
Al Suwaidi and colleagues have described the advantages of saliva testing in school-age children [24]. In our study, we were able to safely and reliably collect and process 23,905 saliva samples from primary schoolchildren and staff. Thus, saliva testing proved to be feasible and suitable for mass screening, as suggested by Azzi [25].
A number of studies have monitored infectious activity in primary schools [1,2,4,26]. However, some were conducted prior to the emergence of VOCs or during periods of low community incidence or lockdown. Furthermore, suboptimal, unpleasant sampling methods like self-swabbing or nasopharyngeal swabs were used in children, and the sample size or test frequency was low. We addressed these limitations by implementing a saliva mass screening concept, recruiting 8.3% of Munich’s primary schoolchildren from 12.8% of the city’s primary schools and by processing a large number of tests. Importantly, this concept comprised a standardized, pre-analytic protocol, thereby avoiding inter- and intra-examiner variability, which may influence results obtained by swabbing. In addition, we monitored and confirmed the sampling quality by measuring the saliva volume in 18.6% of all study samples. Furthermore, the samples could be collected without a team of medical staff.
The study has some limitations: First, we cannot rule out false-negative results. Based on our experience from previous investigations (the sensitivity of the Salivette® method in relation to oropharyngeal swabs was 94.9%), we consider this effect to be low [17,22]. Second, voluntary study participation may be associated with a selection bias, potentially over-representing participants with better adherence to infection control measures when in private or family settings. To mitigate this, we developed a straightforward, multi-language online registration process resulting in participation rates of up to 95% at participating schools. Third, when discussing the significance of our surveillance data, one needs to consider that, after a ramp-up phase in study weeks 1 to 3, larger sample sizes could be obtained from study weeks 4 to 10. Due to public health policy changes, school access during study weeks 6 to 8 was limited and participation of children temporarily dropped by >50%, in line with decreased attendance rates during that period (Table 2).
In summary, the test concept was very well-received by participants, guardians, and staff, and schools were able to integrate testing into their daily routine. We found saliva sampling using the Salivette® to be simple, minimally invasive, and feasible for SARS-CoV-2 mass screening in children, especially when combined with a straightforward online registration process.

5. Conclusions

We conclude that, even during periods of high community transmission, asymptomatic infections in primary schools continue to play a minor role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 when appropriate infection control measures are in place. In light of ongoing debates on how to operate primary schools in the pandemic, we recommend a continuous assessment of infectious activity. We are confident that saliva-based mass screening could play a relevant role in such surveillance activities.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/diagnostics12010162/s1, Figure S1: Study sample flow, Figure S2: Distribution of SARS-CoV-2 variants per calendar week in the City of Munich, February to May 2021, Table S1: Classification of RT-qPCR laboratory test results, Table S2: Aggregated results of an online questionnaire on adherence to infection control measures in participating primary schools, Table S3: Aggregated results of an online questionnaire on the overall study concept evaluation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.H., S.V., U.v.B., E.N., A.R.-H., S.B. and W.S.; methodology, S.V., M.H., U.v.B. and E.N.; software, S.B., N.L., A.S., M.U. and T.W.; validation, S.V., M.H., E.N. and U.v.B.; formal analysis, S.V., N.L., T.W., A.S. and M.U.; investigation, S.V., M.H., U.v.B., E.N., A.K., J.L., E.D. and L.K.; resources, B.W. and S.B.; data curation, S.V., M.H., U.v.B., E.N., A.K., J.L., E.D., L.K., T.W., N.L., A.S., M.U. and J.N.; writing—original draft preparation, S.V., M.H., U.v.B. and E.N.; writing—review and editing, S.V., M.H., U.v.B., E.N., J.N., S.B. and W.S.; visualization, S.V., N.L., E.N., A.S. and M.U.; supervision, S.V., M.H., U.v.B., E.N. and L.K.; project administration, S.V., E.N., M.H., U.v.B. and A.K.; funding acquisition, M.H. and S.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Bavarian Ministry of Health, grant number 21-08. The funding body of the study had no role in the conceptualization, implementation, or analysis of this work.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Ludwig Maximilians University (LMU) (protocol code 21-0233, dated 2 March 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during this study are not publicly available due to the limitations of the participants’ consent forms.

Acknowledgments

We thank all those who contributed to the study: the participating primary schools and their principals, staff members who supervised sampling, children and their families. A special thank goes to the children who participated in the creation of the study information video. We would like to thank Merle Böhmer for reviewing and Franziska Saller for editing the manuscript. We would like to acknowledge Katharina Katz, Jasmin Metz and Astrid Zierer for statistical advice and thank the Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Unterricht und Kultus and the Referat für Bildung und Sport der Landeshauptstadt München for supporting our study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hoch, M.; Vogel, S.; Kolberg, L.; Dick, E.; Fingerle, V.; Eberle, U.; Ackermann, N.; Sing, A.; Huebner, J.; Rack-Hoch, A.; et al. Weekly SARS-CoV-2 Sentinel Surveillance in Primary Schools, Kindergartens, and Nurseries, Germany, June–November 2020. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2021, 27, 2192–2196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ismail, S.A.; Saliba, V.; Lopez Bernal, J.; Ramsay, M.E.; Ladhani, S.N. SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission in educational settings: A prospective, cross-sectional analysis of infection clusters and outbreaks in England. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2021, 21, 344–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD) Division of Viral Diseases. Science Brief: Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in K-12 schools and Early Care and Education Programs-Updated. 9 July 2021. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/transmission_k_12_schools.html (accessed on 11 November 2021).
  4. Ladhani, S.N.; Baawuah, F.; Beckmann, J.; Okike, I.O.; Ahmad, S.; Garstang, J.; Brent, A.J.; Brent, B.; Walker, J.; Andrews, N.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission in primary schools in England in June–December, 2020 (sKIDs): An active, prospective surveillance study. Lancet Child Adolesc. Health 2021, 5, 417–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Davies, N.G.; Klepac, P.; Liu, Y.; Prem, K.; Jit, M.; Pearson, C.A.B.; Quilty, B.J.; Kucharski, A.J.; Gibbs, H.; Clifford, S.; et al. Age-dependent effects in the transmission and control of COVID-19 epidemics. Nat. Med. 2020, 26, 1205–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Viner, R.M.; Russell, S.J.; Croker, H.; Packer, J.; Ward, J.; Stansfield, C.; Mytton, O.; Bonell, C.; Booy, R. School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19: A rapid systematic review. Lancet Child Adolesc. Health 2020, 4, 397–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Creswell, C.; Shum, A.; Pearcey, S.; Skripkauskaite, S.; Patalay, P.; Waite, P. Young people’s mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Child Adolesc. Health 2021, 5, 535–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Racine, N.; McArthur, B.A.; Cooke, J.E.; Eirich, R.; Zhu, J.; Madigan, S. Global Prevalence of Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms in Children and Adolescents During COVID-19: A Meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2021, 175, 1142–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. United Nations Children’s Fund. COVID-19 and School Closures. One year of educational disruption. March 2021. Available online: https://data.unicef.org/resources/one-year-of-covid-19-and-school-closures/ (accessed on 11 November 2021).
  10. Ravens-Sieberer, U.; Kaman, A.; Erhart, M.; Devine, J.; Schlack, R.; Otto, C. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on quality of life and mental health in children and adolescents in Germany. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2021, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Woolford, S.J.; Sidell, M.; Li, X.; Else, V.; Young, D.R.; Resnicow, K.; Koebnick, C. Changes in Body Mass Index Among Children and Adolescents During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA 2021, 326, 1434–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Koletzko, B.; Holzapfel, C.; Schneider, U.; Hauner, H. Lifestyle and Body Weight Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Children: Increasing Disparity. Ann. Nutr. Metab. 2021, 77, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Engzell, P.; Frey, A.; Verhagen, M.D. Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2022376118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Rubens, J.H.; Akindele, N.P.; Tschudy, M.M.; Sick-Samuels, A.C. Acute covid-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. BMJ 2021, 372, n385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Bhopal, S.S.; Bagaria, J.; Olabi, B.; Bhopal, R. Children and young people remain at low risk of COVID-19 mortality. Lancet Child Adolesc. Health 2021, 5, e12–e13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Molteni, E.; Sudre, C.H.; Canas, L.S.; Bhopal, S.S.; Hughes, R.C.; Chen, L.; Deng, J.; Murray, B.; Kerfoot, E.; Antonelli, M.; et al. Illness characteristics of COVID-19 in children infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant. medRxiv 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hoch, M.; Vogel, S.; Eberle, U.; Kolberg, L.; Gruenthaler, V.; Fingerle, V.; Ackermann, N.; Sing, A.; Liebl, B.; Huebner, J.; et al. Feasibility and Diagnostic Accuracy of Saliva-Based SARS-CoV-2 Screening in Educational Settings and Children Aged <12 Years. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tan, S.H.; Allicock, O.; Armstrong-Hough, M.; Wyllie, A.L. Saliva as a gold-standard sample for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Lancet Respir. Med. 2021, 9, 562–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Abasiyanik, M.F.; Flood, B.; Lin, J.; Ozcan, S.; Rouhani, S.J.; Pyzer, A.; Trujillo, J.; Zhen, C.; Wu, P.; Jumic, S.; et al. Sensitive detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 12425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Huang, N.; Pérez, P.; Kato, T.; Mikami, Y.; Okuda, K.; Gilmore, R.C.; Conde, C.D.; Gasmi, B.; Stein, S.; Beach, M.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection of the oral cavity and saliva. Nat. Med. 2021, 27, 892–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Villar, L.M.; da Costa, V.D.; Marques, B.C.L.; da Silva, L.L.; Santos, A.C.; Mendonça, A.C.d.F.; Marques, V.A.; do Nascimento, G.P.; Lewis-Ximenez, L.L.; de Paula, V.S. Usefulness of saliva samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA among liver disease patients. J. Infect. 2021, 82, e4–e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Melo Costa, M.; Benoit, N.; Dormoi, J.; Amalvict, R.; Gomez, N.; Tissot-Dupont, H.; Million, M.; Pradines, B.; Granjeaud, S.; Almeras, L. Salivette, a relevant saliva sampling device for SARS-CoV-2 detection. J. Oral Microbiol. 2021, 13, 1920226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Fougère, Y.; Schwob, J.M.; Miauton, A.; Hoegger, F.; Opota, O.; Jaton, K.; Brouillet, R.; Greub, G.; Genton, B.; Gehri, M.; et al. Performance of RT-PCR on Saliva Specimens Compared with Nasopharyngeal Swabs for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Children: A Prospective Comparative Clinical Trial. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 2021, 40, e300–e304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Al Suwaidi, H.; Senok, A.; Varghese, R.; Deesi, Z.; Khansaheb, H.; Pokasirakath, S.; Chacko, B.; Abufara, I.; Loney, T.; Alsheikh-Ali, A. Saliva for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 in school-age children. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2021, 27, 1330–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Azzi, L. Saliva is the Key Element for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Mass Screening. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2021, 73, e566–e568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Hershow, R.B.; Wu, K.; Lewis, N.M.; Milne, A.T.; Currie, D.; Smith, A.R.; Lloyd, S.; Orleans, B.; Young, E.L.; Freeman, B.; et al. Low SARS-CoV-2 Transmission in Elementary Schools—Salt Lake County, Utah, December 3, 2020–January 31, 2021. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2021, 70, 442–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Pandemic activity and timeline of the Münchner Virenwächter 3.0 surveillance study in primary schools in the city of Munich, Germany, March–May 2021. Seven-day incidence rates were calculated in-house based on national surveillance data by the Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority. RT-qPCR = reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction of saliva samples collected via the Salivette®. SARS-CoV-2 = severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.
Figure 1. Pandemic activity and timeline of the Münchner Virenwächter 3.0 surveillance study in primary schools in the city of Munich, Germany, March–May 2021. Seven-day incidence rates were calculated in-house based on national surveillance data by the Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority. RT-qPCR = reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction of saliva samples collected via the Salivette®. SARS-CoV-2 = severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.
Diagnostics 12 00162 g001
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the study population. Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; y, years; No., number.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the study population. Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; y, years; No., number.
CharacteristicsParticipants, No. (%)
StaffChildren
Total No.6813752
Age, median,(range) [IQR], y41 (14–71) [29–51]8 (6–13) [7–9]
Sex
Male89 (0.13)1826 (0.49)
Female592 (0.87)1926 (0.51)
Table 2. Participants, saliva samples and test frequency per study week. Data are presented as absolute numbers per study week.
Table 2. Participants, saliva samples and test frequency per study week. Data are presented as absolute numbers per study week.
Study Week12345678910
Participants, No.
  Total3414859652128319413121381137427052816
    Children 230363741176328089611010100522982403
    Staff members 111122224365386351371369407413
Saliva samples, No.
  Total35149410042168425021942370241541804479
    Children (all)2303667541769370116261778180334903748
    Children (negative)2303667531769369916231777180234903748
    Children (positive)0010220000
    Children (inconclusive)0000011100
    Staff members (all)121128250399549568592612690731
    Staff members (negative)121128250398549566592612690731
    Staff members (positive)0001020000
    Staff members (inconclusive)0000000000
Test frequency, No.
    Children tested once2303607281757192355955449512581329
    Children tested twice03136878179197258910843
    Children tested three times00006201228225108205
    Children tested four times0000149182212
    Children tested five times0000018229014
    Staff members tested once101116200331246218233207222208
    Staff members tested twice10622341207478103107127
    Staff members tested three times0020174446465857
    Staff members tested four times00003556207
    Staff members tested five times000001098014
Table 3. Volume assessment of 4515 saliva samples from study week 10. Data are presented as the number of measured Salivette® samples by age or age group.
Table 3. Volume assessment of 4515 saliva samples from study week 10. Data are presented as the number of measured Salivette® samples by age or age group.
Age Group [Years]nMean [μL]Min [μL]Max [μL]
626114953003150
710451481103600
89161579504300
988916091003900
106081558103600
11–136015234002750
6–13 (all children)37791549104300
14–71 (all staff)7361582502650
All45151554104300
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vogel, S.; von Both, U.; Nowak, E.; Ludwig, J.; Köhler, A.; Lee, N.; Dick, E.; Rack-Hoch, A.; Wicklein, B.; Neusser, J.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 Saliva Mass Screening in Primary Schools: A 10-Week Sentinel Surveillance Study in Munich, Germany. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 162. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010162

AMA Style

Vogel S, von Both U, Nowak E, Ludwig J, Köhler A, Lee N, Dick E, Rack-Hoch A, Wicklein B, Neusser J, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Saliva Mass Screening in Primary Schools: A 10-Week Sentinel Surveillance Study in Munich, Germany. Diagnostics. 2022; 12(1):162. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010162

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vogel, Sebastian, Ulrich von Both, Elisabeth Nowak, Janina Ludwig, Alexandra Köhler, Noah Lee, Elisabeth Dick, Anita Rack-Hoch, Bernd Wicklein, Jessica Neusser, and et al. 2022. "SARS-CoV-2 Saliva Mass Screening in Primary Schools: A 10-Week Sentinel Surveillance Study in Munich, Germany" Diagnostics 12, no. 1: 162. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010162

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop