Abstract
Background It is almost nine months, still there is no sign to stop the spreading of the COVID-19 pandemic. Rapid and early detection of the virus is the master key to cease the rapid spread and break the human transmission chain. There are very few studies in search of an alternate and convenient diagnostic tool which can substitute nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimen for detection of SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to analyse the comparison and agreement between the feasibility of using the saliva in comparison to NPS for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.
Methods A total number of 74 patients were enrolled for this study. We analysed and compared the NPS and saliva specimen collected within 48 h after the symptom onset. We used real time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), gene sequencing for the detection and determination SARS-CoV-2 specific genes. Phylogenetic tree was constructed to establish the isolation of viral RNA from saliva. We use Bland-Altman model to identify the agreement between two specimens.
Findings This study shows a lower CT mean value for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 ORF1 gene (27.07; 95% CI, 25.62 to 28.52) in saliva methods than that of NPS (28.24; 95% CI, 26.62 to 29.85) sampling method. Bland-Altman analysis produces relatively smaller bias and high agreement between these specimen tools. Phylogenetic analysis with the RdRp and Spike gene confirmed the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva samples.
Interpretation In conclusion, our study highlights that saliva represents a promising tool in COVID-19 diagnosis and would reduce the exposure risk of frontline health workers which is one of biggest concern in primary healthcare settings.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was carried out with funding support from Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi.
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 cleared by institutional ethical committee of ICMR-Regional Medical Research Centre, Bhubaneswar.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
