RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluation of saliva sampling procedures for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics reveals differential sensitivity and association with viral load
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.10.06.20207902
DO 10.1101/2020.10.06.20207902
A1 Mestdagh, Pieter
A1 Gillard, Michel
A1 Arbyn, Marc
A1 Pirnay, Jean-Paul
A1 Poels, Jeroen
A1 Hellemans, Jan
A1 Peeters, Eliana
A1 Hutse, Veronik
A1 Vermeiren, Celine
A1 Boutier, Maxime
A1 De Wever, Veerle
A1 Soentjens, Patrick
A1 Djebara, Sarah
A1 Malonne, Hugues
A1 André, Emmanuel
A1 Smeraglia, John
A1 Vandesompele, Jo
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/13/2020.10.06.20207902.abstract
AB Nasopharyngeal sampling has been the preferential collection method for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. Alternative sampling procedures that are less invasive and do not require a healthcare professional would be more preferable for patients and health professionals. Saliva collection has been proposed as such a possible alternative sampling procedure. We evaluated the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 testing on two different saliva collection devices (spitting versus swabbing) compared to nasopharyngeal swabs in over 2500 individuals that were either symptomatic or had high-risk contacts with infected individuals. We observed an overall poor sensitivity in saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection (30.8% and 22.4% for spitting and swabbing, respectively). However, when focusing on individuals with medium to high viral load, sensitivity increased substantially (97.0% and 76.7% for spitting and swabbing, respectively), irrespective of symptomatic status. Our results suggest that saliva cannot readily replace nasopharyngeal sampling for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics but may enable identification of cases with medium to high viral loads.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding was receivedAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study S64125 was approved by the ethical review committee of the University Hospital of Leuven on May, 29 2020.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as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).YesI 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.YesAll data are available as supplemental tables.