Abstract
The gold standard method in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is the detection of viral RNA in nasopharyngeal sample by RT-PCR. Recently, saliva samples has been suggested as an alternative due to being fast, reliable and non-invasive, rather than nasopharyngeal samples. We compared RT-PCR results in nasopharyngeal, oro-nasopharyngeal and saliva samples of COVID-19 patients. 98 of 200 patients were positive in RT-PCR analysis performed before the hospitalization. In day 0, at least one sample was positive in 67% of 98 patients. Positivity rate was 83% for both oro-nasopharyngeal and nasopharyngeal samples, while it was 63% for saliva samples (p<0.001). On day 5, RT-PCR was performed in 59 patients, 34% had at least one positive result. The positivity rate was 55% for saliva and nasopharyngeal samples, while it was 60% for oro-nasopharyngeal samples. Our study shows that the sampling saliva does not increase the sensitivity of RT-PCR tests at early stages of infection. However, on 5th day, viral RNA detection rates in saliva were similar to nasopharyngeal and oro-nasopharyngeal samples. In conclusion, we suggest that, in patients receiving treatment, virus presence in saliva, in addition to the standard samples, is important to determine the isolation period and to control the transmission.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
None
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:
All subjects provided informed consent, and the study was approved by the ethics committee of Umraniye Teaching and Research Hospital (B.10.1.THK.4.34.H.GP.0.01/167)
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this article.
