Abstract
Saliva has been described a less invasive and easy to handle sample, compared to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in adults. Although the advantages of using saliva is still more evident in paediatric patients, little is now about its sensitivity in this group. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of saliva to that of NPS in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in paediatric patients with mild symptoms. This study evaluated saliva samples from children with suspected COVID-19 who attended public healthcare services of Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil. Children were asked to spit into a sterile container for collection of about 1ml of saliva after the NPS collection. SARS-COV-2 detection was performed by using the Altona RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Kit 1.0. The sample consisted of 50 patients, in which 27 were girls (54%) and 23 were boys (46%). Ten were positive for SARS-CoV-2 in at least one sample collected. The mean age was 10.24 ± 3.52 years old and saliva was collected after 4.76 ± 1.31 days from the symptoms. Saliva and NPS have showed the same performance in the SARS-CoV-2 detection (k = 0.865, P < 0.001). In conclusion, saliva is a reliable alternative sample for COVID-19 diagnosis in paediatric population.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) according to grant # 2019/03859-9.
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:
This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Sao Paulo School of Medicine under protocol number 4235245.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
Data availability under request.
