PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Barat, Bidisha AU - Das, Sanchita AU - De Giorgi, Valeria AU - Henderson, David K. AU - Kopka, Stacy AU - Lau, Anna F. AU - Miller, Tracey AU - Moriarty, Theresa AU - Palmore, Tara N. AU - Sawney, Shari AU - Spalding, Chris AU - Tanjutco, Patricia AU - Wortmann, Glenn AU - Zelazny, Adrian M. AU - Frank, Karen M. TI - Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing AID - 10.1101/2020.10.02.20204859 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.10.02.20204859 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/05/2020.10.02.20204859.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/05/2020.10.02.20204859.full AB - We evaluated saliva (SAL) specimens for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing by comparison of 459 prospectively paired nasopharyngeal (NP) or mid-turbinate (MT) swabs from 449 individuals with the aim of using saliva for asymptomatic screening. Samples were collected in a drive-through car line for symptomatic individuals (N=380) and in the emergency department (ED) (N=69). The percent positive and negative agreement of saliva compared to nasopharyngeal swab were 81.1% (95% CI: 65.8% – 90.5%) and 99.8% (95% CI: 98.7% – 100%), respectively. The sensitivity increased to 90.0% (95% CI: 74.4% – 96.5%) when considering only samples with moderate to high viral load (Cycle threshold (Ct) for the NP <=34). Pools of five saliva specimens were also evaluated on three platforms: bioMérieux NucliSENS easyMAG with ABI 7500Fast (CDC assay), Hologic Panther Fusion, and Roche COBAS 6800. The median loss of signal upon pooling was 2-4 Ct values across the platforms. The sensitivity of detecting a positive specimen in a pool compared with testing individually was 100%, 93%, and 95% for CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR, Panther Fusion® SARS-CoV-2 assay, and cobas® SARS-CoV-2 test respectively, with decreased sample detection trending with lower viral load. We conclude that although pooled saliva testing, as collected in this study, is not quite as sensitive as NP/MT testing, saliva testing is adequate to detect individuals with higher viral loads in an asymptomatic screening program, does not require swabs or viral transport media for collection, and may help to improve voluntary screening compliance for those individuals averse to various forms of nasal collections.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNCT04424446Funding StatementWe declare that we have no conflicts of interest. This work was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center. This project has been funded in part with federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, under Contract No. 75N910D00024, Task Order No., Task Order No. 75N91019F00130. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. No other external funding was received for this study.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:The study was approved by the IRB committees of both participating institutions.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 for this study are included in supplemental tubes S3-S6.