Abstract
Background Although nasopharyngeal (NP) samples have been considered the gold standard for COVID-19 testing, variability in viral load across different anatomical sites could theoretically cause NP samples to be less sensitive than saliva or nasal samples in certain cases. Self-collected samples also have logistical advantages over NP samples, making them amenable to population-scale screening.
Methods To evaluate sampling alternatives for population screening, we collected NP, saliva, and nasal samples from two cohorts with varied levels and types of symptoms.
Results In a mixed cohort of 60 symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, we found that saliva had 88% concordance with NP when tested in the same testing lab (n = 41), and 68% concordance when tested in different testing labs (n = 19). In a second cohort of 20 participants hospitalized for COVID-19, saliva had 74% concordance with NP tested in the same testing lab, but detected virus in two participants that tested negative with NP on the same day. Medical record review showed that the saliva-based testing sensitivity was related to the timing of symptom onset and disease stage.
Conclusions We find that no sample site will be perfectly sensitive for COVID-19 testing in all situations, and the significance of negative results will always need to be determined in the context of clinical signs and symptoms. Saliva retained high clinical sensitivity while allowing easier collection, minimizing the exposure of healthcare workers and need for personal protective equipment, and making it a viable option for population-scale testing.
Competing Interest Statement
Potential conflicts of interest: D.K. and D.G. serve as Senior Scientific Advisors to Diversigen, a company involved in the commercialization of microbiome analysis. A.J.J, S.Z., S.H., B.H., M.S., R.K., J.D., K.B., S.Y., and A.C.N. have no conflict.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by University of Minnesota Office of the Vice President for Research COVID19 Rapid Response Grant #06 to Dan Knights.
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:
Both cohorts were recruited, consented, and enrolled under protocols approved by the University of Minnesota's Institutional Review Board (Cohort 1A and 1B: STUDY00009393, Cohort 2: STUDY00009560).
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
Footnotes
This version revised due to accidental omission of two authors from the web author list.
Data Availability
Deidentified data is available on request.
