PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Marx, Grace E.
AU  - Smith-Jeffcoat, Sarah E.
AU  - Biggerstaff, Brad J.
AU  - Koh, Mitsuki
AU  - Nawrocki, Courtney C.
AU  - Travanty, Emily A.
AU  - Totten, Sarah E.
AU  - Scott, Tracy
AU  - De Hey, Jesse Chavez-Van
AU  - Carlson, Jesse J.
AU  - Wendel, Karen A.
AU  - Burakoff, Alexis W.
AU  - Hoffman, Adam
AU  - Rebolledo, Paulina A.
AU  - Schechter, Marcos C.
AU  - Wang, Yun F.
AU  - Moore, Brooks L.
AU  - Atallah, Hany Y.
AU  - Sexton, D. Joseph
AU  - Hartloge, Claire
AU  - Paulick, Ashley
AU  - Miller, Halie K.
AU  - Sleweon, Sadia
AU  - Rosetti, Rebecca
AU  - Shragai, Talya
AU  - O’Laughlin, Kevin
AU  - Stewart, Rebekah J.
AU  - da Silva, Juliana
AU  - Biedron, Caitlin
AU  - ,
AU  - ,
AU  - ,
AU  - Thomas, Jennifer D.
AU  - Kirking, Hannah L.
AU  - Tate, Jacqueline E.
AU  - Rowan, Sarah E.
TI  - SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR on self-collected anterior nares swabs or saliva compared with clinician-collected nasopharyngeal swabs — Denver and Atlanta, August – November, 2020
AID  - 10.1101/2021.02.16.21251521
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.02.16.21251521
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/19/2021.02.16.21251521.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/19/2021.02.16.21251521.full
AB  - Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) collected by trained healthcare professionals are the preferred specimen for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Self-collected specimens might decrease patient discomfort, conserve healthcare resources, and be preferred by patients. During August – November 2020, 1,806 adults undergoing SARS-CoV-2 testing in Denver, Colorado and Atlanta, Georgia, provided self-collected anterior nares swabs (ANS) and saliva specimens before NPS collection. Compared to NPS, sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR appeared higher for saliva than for ANS (85% versus 80% in Denver; 67% versus 58% in Atlanta) and higher among participants reporting current symptoms (94% and 87% in Denver; 72% and 62% in Atlanta, for saliva and ANS, respectively) than among those reporting no symptoms (29% and 50% in Denver; 50% and 44% in Atlanta, for saliva and ANS, respectively). Compared to ANS, saliva was more challenging to collect and process. Self-collected saliva and ANS are less sensitive than NPS for SARS-CoV-2 detection; however, they offer practical advantages and might be most useful for currently symptomatic patients.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementTesting efforts by Denver Public health were partially funded through a contract with the City and County of Denver. Testing kits and laboratory support were provided by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. None of the authors received payment or services from any aspect of the submitted work. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Author 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 activity was reviewed by CDC and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy. The Institutional Review Boards in Denver (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment; University of Colorado) and Emory University in Atlanta also determined this activity was an exempt public health activity, consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy.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 authors had access to the data presented in the manuscript and take responsibility for the analysis and data interpretation.