Abstract
Background Currently, COVID-19 diagnosis relies on quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens, but NPSs present several limitations. The simplicity, low invasive and possibility of self-collection of saliva imposed this specimen as a relevant alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection. However, the discrepancy of saliva test results compared to NPSs made of its use controversial. Here, we proposed to assess Salivettes®, as a standardized saliva collection device, and to compare SARS-CoV-2 positivity on paired NPS and saliva specimens.
Methods A total of 303 individuals randomly selected among those investigated for SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled, including 30 (9.9%) patients previously positively tested using NPS (follow-up group), 90 (29.7%) mildly symptomatic and 183 (60.4%) asymptomatic.
Results The RT-qPCR revealed a positive rate of 11.6% (n=35) and 17.2% (n=52) for NPSs and saliva samples, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of saliva samples were 82.9% and 91.4%, respectively, using NPS as reference. The highest proportion of discordant results concerned the follow-up group (33.3%). Although in the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups the agreement exceeded 90.0%, 17 individuals were detected positive only in saliva samples, with consistent medical arguments.
Conclusion Saliva collected with Salivette® demonstrated more sensitive for detecting symptomatic and pre-symptomatic infections.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
N2020-A01249-30 protocol, 06/08/2020
Funding Statement
This work has been supported by the Agence Innovation Defense (AID, CoviDiagMS Project, Grant n2020-COVID19-15) and the Delegation Generale pour Armement (DGA, MoSIS project, Grant no PDH-2-NRBC-2-B-2113).
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:
Ile de France 1 ethical committee
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
Footnotes
Authors’ emails: MMC: mcosta.monique{at}gmail; NB: nicobenoit73{at}hotmail.com;□DJ: jerome.dormoi{at}gmail.com; RA: remy_alt{at}yahoo.fr; NG: nico13dna{at}hotmail.com; HTD: herve.tissot-dupont{at}ap-hm.fr; MM: Matthieu.MILLION{at}ap-hm.fr; BP: bruno.pradines{at}gmail.com; SG: samuel.granjeaud{at}inserm.fr; LA: almeras.lionel{at}gmail.com.
Data Availability
All the data were included in the manuscript
List of abbreviations
- NPS
- nasopharyngeal swab
- PCR
- Polymerase Chain Reaction
- Ct
- Cycle threshold
- RT-qPCR
- Reverse transcription quantitative real-time PCR
- SARS-CoV-2
- Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2
- COVID-19
- Coronavirus Disease 2019
- PPA
- positive percent agreement
