Abstract
Background The continued need for molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2 and potential for self-collected saliva as an alternative to nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs for sample acquisition led us to compare saliva to NP swabs in an outpatient setting, without restrictions to avoid food, drink, smoking, or tooth-brushing.
Methods A total of 385 pairs of NP and saliva specimens were obtained, the majority from individuals presenting for initial evaluation, and were tested on two high-sensitivity RT-PCR platforms: the Abbott m2000 and Abbott Alinity m (both with limits of detection [LoD] of 100 copies of viral RNA/mL).
Results Concordance between saliva and NP was excellent overall (Cohen’s κ=0.93), for both initial and followup testing, for both platforms, and for specimens treated with guanidinium transport medium as preservative as well as for untreated saliva (κ=0.88-0.95). Viral loads were on average 16x higher in NP specimens than saliva specimens, suggesting that only the relatively small fraction of outpatients (∼8% in this study) who present with very low viral loads (<1,600 copies/mL from NP swabs) would be missed by testing saliva instead of NP swabs, when using sensitive testing platforms. Special attention was necessary to ensure leak-resistant specimen collection and transport.
Conclusions The advantages of self-collection of saliva, without behavioral restrictions, will likely outweigh a minor potential decrease in clinical sensitivity in individuals less likely to pose an infectious risk to others for many real-world scenarios, especially for initial testing.
Key points Saliva has comparable sensitivity and specificity to nasopharyngeal swabs for RT-PCR-based COVID-19 testing (concordance, κ=0.93; n=385 participants), albeit with slightly lower recovery of viral RNA. Treatment with a readily available guanidinium preservative within 24 hours of sample collection improves recovery.
Competing Interest Statement
This work was supported through a sponsored research agreement with Abbott Molecular. CC, SD, SD, NL, AC, KK, DM, SR, and RA have no other potential conflicts of interest to declare. JK has received reagents from Abbott Molecular for unrelated studies under a Covid-19 Diagnostics Evaluation Agreement.
Funding Statement
This work was supported through a sponsored research agreement with Abbott Molecular.
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 reviewed and approved by institutional review board at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC; IRB protocol no. 2020P000769).
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
De-identified data is presented in Supplementary File 1. Supplementary Data can be found at (https://github.com/rarnaout/Covid_diagnostics).
