PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Fougère, Yves AU - Schwob, Jean Marc AU - Miauton, Alix AU - Hoegger, Francesca AU - Opota, Onya AU - Jaton, Katia AU - Brouillet, Rene AU - Greub, Gilbert AU - Genton, Blaise AU - Gehri, Mario AU - Taddeo, Ilaria AU - D’Acremont, Valérie AU - Asner, Sandra A. TI - Performance of RT-PCR on saliva specimens compared to nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children: A prospective comparative clinical trial AID - 10.1101/2021.02.27.21252571 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.02.27.21252571 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/01/2021.02.27.21252571.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/01/2021.02.27.21252571.full AB - Background Saliva RT-PCR is an attractive alternative for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in adults with much less known in children.Methods Children and adolescents with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 were prospectively enrolled in a comparative clinical trial of saliva and nasopharyngeal (NP) RT-PCR between November and December 2020. Detection rates and sensitivities of saliva and NP RT-PCR were compared. Participants with discordant NP and saliva RT-PCR results including viral load (VL) were also analyzed.Result Out of 405 patients enrolled, 397 patients had two tests performed. Mean age was 12.7 years (range 1.2-17.9). Detection rates were 22.9% (95%CI 18.8-27.1%) by saliva RT-PCR, 25.4% (21.2-29.7%) by NP RT-PCR, and 26.7% (22.4-31.1%) by any test. The sensitivity of saliva was 85.2% (78.2-92.1%) when using NP as the gold standard; in contrast, when saliva was considered the gold standard, the sensitivity of NP was 94.5% (89.8-99.2%).For a NP RT-PCR VL threshold of ≥103 and ≥104 copies/ml, sensitivity of saliva increases to 88.7% and 95.2% respectively. Sensitivity of saliva and NP swabs was respectively 89.5% and 95.3% in patient with symptoms less than 4 days (p=0.249) and 70.0% and 95.0% in those with symptoms ≥ 4 to 7 days (p=0.096). The 15 patients who had an isolated positive NP RT-PCR were significantly younger (p=0.034), had a lower NP VL (median 5.6×103 vs 3.9×107, p<0.001), and were not able to drool saliva at the end of the sampling (p=0.002). VLs were significantly lower with saliva PCR than with NP RT-PCR (median 8.7 cp/ml x104; IQR 1.2×104-5.2×105; vs median 4.0×107cp/ml; IQR 8.6×105-1.x108; p<0.001).Conclusion Saliva PCR shows diagnostic performances close to NP RT-PCR for SARS-CoV2 detection in most symptomatic outpatient children and adolescents.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNCT04613310Funding StatementThe saliva PCR were paid for by the cantonal health authorities.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:CER-VD 2020-02269All 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 referred in this manuscript ara available