Among the devices used for oral fluid collection, Salivette® had the lowest sensitivity rate (92.73%), with four oral fluid samples from vaccinated individuals testing negative for anti-HAV antibodies. These results are in line with previous studies reporting negative results when using this oral fluid device ,  and . The damaging effect of plain cotton on the analytical performance of this device is conceivably attributed to substances derived from the cotton, which affect the results by interfering with the detection of antibodies . The efficiency of see more antibody elution from the device’s sorbent material may vary among the
oral fluid collection devices and may reflect different procedures of collection. The ChemBio® device is designed buy ZD1839 to specifically target the gums, which is the region of the oral cavity most likely to be rich in crevicular fluid; additionally, the ChemBio® device is used more vigorously inside the mouth than the other two devices. This characteristic of the product may explain why oral fluid samples collected by devices that specifically target crevicular fluid may contain anti-HAV antibodies in quantities that more reliably reflect the levels in serum samples . The other devices, OraSure® and Salivette®, are placed inside the oral cavity adjacent to the gums and thus have a similar collection
procedure, as reported by a study comparing three different oral-fluid Interleukin-2 receptor collection devices including
OraSure®. Nevertheless, OraSure® performed better than Salivette®, a finding that may be related to substances that are present in the OraSure® device that stimulate the transudation of immunoglobulins from the vascular space to the oral cavity . A comparative analysis of the median color scale values revealed higher values in samples from individuals with a natural immunity to HAV than in those from HAV-vaccinated individuals. Of the three oral collection devices tested, the results provided by the ChemBio® device were the most similar to the results from the reference serum samples. Additionally, the ChemBio® device exhibited the best combination of evaluation performance parameters, which were higher than those reported in previous studies (Table 6). To determine the effectiveness of the ChemBio® device and its applicability in a surveillance setting as a substitute for serum samples, we performed an investigation of HAV infection in difficult-to-access areas of South Pantanal. Using samples collected from individuals belonging to different communities, we observed similar values of prevalence of anti-HAV antibodies (79.01%) and anti-HAV seroprevalence (80.8%) in oral fluid collected with ChemBio®. The suitability of oral fluid in an epidemiological scenario is closely related to the stability of the sample.