Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Saliva Sample as a Non-Invasive Specimen for the Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19): a Cross-Sectional Study

Ekawat Pasomsub, Siriorn P. Watcharananan, Kochawan Boonyawat, Pareena Janchompoo, Garanyuta Wongtabtim, Worramin Suksuwan, Somnuek Sungkanuparph, View ORCID ProfileAngsana Phuphuakrat
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.17.20070045
Ekawat Pasomsub
1Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Siriorn P. Watcharananan
2Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kochawan Boonyawat
2Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pareena Janchompoo
1Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Garanyuta Wongtabtim
1Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Worramin Suksuwan
2Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Somnuek Sungkanuparph
3Chakri Naruebodindra Medical Institute, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Samut Prakan, Thailand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Angsana Phuphuakrat
2Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Angsana Phuphuakrat
  • For correspondence: angsana.phu@mahidol.ac.th
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Objectives Amid the increasing number of global pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, there is a need for a quick and easy method to obtain a non-invasive sample for the detection of this novel coronavirus 2019 (SARS-CoV-2). We aimed to investigate the potential use of saliva samples as a non-invasive tool for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Methods From 27 March to 4 April, 2020, we prospectively collected saliva samples and a standard nasopharyngeal and throat swab in persons seeking care at an acute respiratory infection clinic in a university hospital during the outbreak of COVID-19. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was performed, and the results of the two specimens were compared.

Results Two-hundred pairs of the samples were collected. Sixty-nine (34.5%) patients were male, and the median (interquartile) age was 36 (28-48) years. Using nasopharyngeal and throat swab RT-PCR as the reference standard, the prevalence of COVID-19 diagnosed by nasopharyngeal and throat swab RT-PCR was 9.5%. The sensitivity and specificity of the saliva sample RT-PCR were 84.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 79.2%-89.3%], and 98.9% (95% CI 97.5-100.3%), respectively. An analysis of the agreement between the two specimens demonstrated 97.5% observed agreement (kappa coefficient 0.851, 95% CI 0.723-0.979; p <0.001).

Conclusions Saliva specimens can be used for the diagnosis of COVID-19. The collection method is non-invasive, and non-aerosol generating. Using a saliva sample as a specimen for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 could facilitate the diagnosis of the disease, which is one of the strategies that helps in controlling the epidemic.

Introduction

Since December 2019, the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the novel coronavirus 2019 (SARS-CoV-2) has emerged in Hebei Province of China and has spread to other parts of the world [1, 2]. The number of cases has been increasing rapidly, with a case-fatality rate of 2.3% [3].

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in patient specimens is the first crucial step for the guidance of treatment, effective infection control in the hospital and control of infection in the community. Screening of infection in suspected cases with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), such as real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), in respiratory specimens, is recommended by the World Health Organization [4]. However, the collection of nasopharyngeal and/or oropharyngeal swab specimens is a relatively invasive method and the procedure might put healthcare workers at higher risk for disease transmission during patients’ gag reflex, cough, or sneezing.

As SARS-CoV-2 viral load was demonstrated to present near presentation onset [5], using a saliva sample as the specimen for the screening of the disease is appealing. To determine the potential of using a saliva sample for the diagnosis of COVID-19, we conducted a prospective study investigating the correlation of detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a saliva sample, and nasopharyngeal and throat swabs in patients under investigation at an acute respiratory infection clinic at a university hospital in Bangkok, Thailand during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Methods

Study population

A prospective study was conducted among 200 patients under investigation who attended an acute respiratory infection clinic at Ramathibodi Hosptial, Bangkok, Thailand, during 27 March and 4 April, 2020. The inclusion criteria were those who presented with a history of fever or acute respiratory symptoms together with 1) travel history from an endemic area of COVID-19 within 14 days, or 2) contact with an individual who was confirmed or suspected having COVID-19. Patients aged less than 18 years old were excluded.

Patient characteristics, symptoms at presentation, and risk factors were collected. As a standard protocol, nasopharyngeal and throat swabs from a patient were collected using Copan FLOQSwabs® and a sterile tube containing Copan’s Universal Transport Medium™ (UTM®) (Copan Diagnostics). Prior to collecting the swabs, patients were asked to provide a saliva sample, void of coughing, in a sputum collection container containing the UTM®.

The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethical Clearance Committee on Human Right Related to Research Involving Human Subjects of the Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University.

Specimen processing

Nasopharyngeal and throat swab in a tube and saliva sample from the collection container were treated with the lysis buffer (BioMerieux) to inactivate the SARS-CoV-2. Viral RNA was extracted from 200 μl of the samples within 26 minutes using MagDEA® Dx reagents (Precision System Science) fully automated nucleic acid extraction system, according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

RT-PCR workflow

The detection of SARS-CoV-2 in the specimens was performed by real-time RT-PCR amplification of SARS-CoV-2 ORF1AB and N gene fragments, using a SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Diagnostic Kit (Sansure Biotech) which was approved for detection of the SARS-CoV-2 by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) and certified by the China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) [6]. The lower limit of detection of the test was 200 copies/sample. RT-PCR was performed by the CFX96 Real-Time Detection System (Bio-Rad). The result was considered positive if the cycle threshold (Ct) values of both target genes were ≤38, and negative when Ct values of both targets were >38. Retesting was done among the samples with discordancy of the Ct values; i.e. samples with one target gene with a Ct value of ≤38 and another showing a Ct value of >38. Among the retesting, the specimens with repeated discordancy were reported as negative. The turnaround time of the diagnosis was approximately four hours.

Statistical analysis

Data were analysed for normality and descriptive statistics presented as a number (percent) for categorical variables and mean±standard deviation (SD) or median (interquartile range; IQR) for continuous variables. Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used for categorical variables. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) and a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to assess diagnostic performance. The kappa coefficient [7] was used to estimate for the agreement between the saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal and throat swab RT-PCR results. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata statistical software version 15.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, 2018).

Results

Two-hundred pairs of samples of nasopharyngeal and throat swab, and saliva samples were collected. Sixty-nine (34.5%) patients were male. The median (IQR) age was 36 (28-48) years. Median (IQR) onset of symptoms was 3 (2-7) days. Characteristics of the patients are presented in Table 1. The prevalence of COVID-19 diagnosed by nasopharyngeal and throat swab RT-PCR, and saliva RT-PCR in this study were 9.5% and 9.0%, respectively.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Characteristics of patients under investigation diagnosed with COVID-19 by RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal and throat swabs

Among 19 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 by nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR, the median age was 33 (26-44) years. Fever as defined by temperature ≥37.5°C was presented in 3 (15.8%) patients. The mean±SD temperature was 37±0.46°C and the mean±SD onset of symptoms prior to the test was 6.35±5.7 days. Common symptoms at presentation were cough (11, 57.9%), dyspnoea (7, 36.8%), and runny nose (5, 26.3%). When compared with 181 patients with negative nasopharyngeal and throat swab RT-PCR, only a sore throat at presentation was significantly lower in the COVID-19 patients. Other characteristics, symptoms at presentation and risk factors were not significantly different (Table 1).

To determine the diagnostic test performance of RT-PCR of the saliva, RT-PCR results of the nasopharyngeal and throat swabs were used as the reference standard. The sensitivity and specificity of saliva samples were 84.2% (95% CI 79.2%-89.3%), and 98.9% (95% CI 97.5-100.3%), respectively (Table 2). PPV and NPV were 88.9% (95% CI 84.5%-93.2%), and 98.4% (95% CI 96.6-100.1%), respectively. An analysis of the agreement between the two specimens revealed a 97.5% observed agreement (kappa coefficient 0.851, 95% CI 0.723-0.979; p <0.001).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

The comparison for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR between nasopharyngeal and throat swab, and saliva sample

Discussion

The present study showed the value of testing a saliva sample as a non-invasive detection of SARS-CoV-2. The Saliva PCR test demonstrated high sensitivity and comparable performance to the current standard of nasopharyngeal and throat swab. The kappa coefficient value showed a strong agreement of the diagnosis between the standard nasopharyngeal and throat swab and the saliva sample.

Like severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus (SARS-CoV), a causative agent of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), SARS-CoV-2 employs the host-cell angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as the main host receptor for cellular entry [8]. Previous experimental studies showed a higher level of ACE2 expression in minor salivary glands, as compared to that in the lungs [9] and that the epithelial cells lining salivary gland duct were early targets cells of SARS-CoV infection in rhesus macaques [10]. SARS-CoV was also detected in saliva samples [11]. This suggested that the salivary glands could be a potential target for SAR-CoV-2 infection, and hence saliva could be a potential sample for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

From recent findings, SARS-CoV-2 was detected from posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples, with a notable high viral load at the disease presentation. [5, 12]. In their protocol, an early morning saliva was collected after coughing up by clearing the throat. In our study, a saliva sample was the patient’s self-generated, without a need for coughing up. This non-invasive procedure might be less aerosol-generating and might reduce the risk of infection for health care workers working in the clinic.

Although testing of saliva might provide an advantage as an easy procedure, a comparison study between saliva and confirmed case of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid or convalescence serum titre has not been available. A recent study that detected the virus from multiple sites showed a lower test positivity rate from the nasal swab (63%), as compared to the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (93%) [13]. Therefore, a false negative test of the SARS-CoV-2 from saliva sample might possible, and this would be an area for further exploration. However, the spectrum of the disease ranges from asymptomatic, upper respiratory tract symptoms, pneumonia, and acute respiratory distress syndrome [14, 15]. Hence, the discrepancy of SARS-CoV-2 detection from different specimens might also be possible.

The study had several strengths. We prospectively collected data on consecutive patients who were at high risk of COVID-19 infection including those with acute respiratory symptoms and having risk factors, thus minimizing potential spectrum effect. All enrolled patients were verified with the reference standard. As for the limitations, two specimens had detectable of SARS-CoV-2 from saliva samples, but were undetectable from nasopharyngeal and throat swab. The significance of these positive results are unknown since we do not have clinical data on any follow-up of these patients.

With the current situation of a shortage supply of personal protective equipment during the pandemic and moderate risk of infection among healthcare workers, a saliva sample is an alternative specimen collection for the diagnosis of COVID-19, especially in resource-limited settings.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that there is no conflicts of interest.

Funding

This study was supported by a grant from Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University.

Contribution of authors

EP, SPW, and AP designed the study, and wrote the manuscript. PJ, GW, and WS performed the study. KB and AP analysed the data. KB and SS edited the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to physicians and nurses at the acute respiratory infection clinic at Ramathibodi Hospital for their help in collecting the samples.

References

  1. [1].↵
    Chan JF, Yuan S, Kok KH, To KK, Chu H, Yang J, et al. A familial cluster of pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus indicating person-to-person transmission: a study of a family cluster. Lancet 2020;395(10223):514–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. [2].↵
    Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Zhao J, Hu Y, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020;395(10223):497–506.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. [3].↵
    Guan WJ, Ni ZY, Hu Y, Liang WH, Ou CQ, He JX, et al. Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med 2020;doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2002032.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. [4].↵
    World Health Organization. Laboratory testing for 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in suspected human cases 2020 [Available from: https://www.who.int/publications-detail/laboratory-testing-for-2019-novel-coronavirus-in-suspected-human-cases-20200117.
  5. [5].↵
    To KK, Tsang OT, Leung WS, Tam AR, Wu TC, Lung DC, et al. Temporal profiles of viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples and serum antibody responses during infection by SARS-CoV-2: an observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 2020;doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30196-1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. [6].↵
    Loeffelholz MJ, Tang YW. Laboratory diagnosis of emerging human coronavirus infections - the state of the art. Emerg Microbes Infect 2020;9(1):747–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. [7].↵
    McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012;22(3):276–82.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. [8].↵
    Hoffmann M, Kleine-Weber H, Schroeder S, Kruger N, Herrler T, Erichsen S, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Cell Entry Depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and Is Blocked by a Clinically Proven Protease Inhibitor. Cell 2020;doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.052.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. [9].↵
    Xu J, Li Y, Gan F, Du Y, Yao Y. Salivary Glands: Potential Reservoirs for COVID-19 Asymptomatic Infection. J Dent Res 2020;doi:10.1177/0022034520918518.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. [10].↵
    Liu L, Wei Q, Alvarez X, Wang H, Du Y, Zhu H, et al. Epithelial cells lining salivary gland ducts are early target cells of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection in the upper respiratory tracts of rhesus macaques. J Virol 2011;85(8):4025–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. [11].↵
    Wang WK, Chen SY, Liu IJ, Chen YC, Chen HL, Yang CF, et al. Detection of SARS- associated coronavirus in throat wash and saliva in early diagnosis. Emerg Infect Dis 2004;10(7):1213–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. [12].↵
    To KK, Tsang OT, Chik-Yan Yip C, Chan KH, Wu TC, Chan JMC, et al. Consistent detection of 2019 novel coronavirus in saliva. Clin Infect Dis 2020;doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa149.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. [13].↵
    Wang W, Xu Y, Gao R, Lu R, Han K, Wu G, et al. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Different Types of Clinical Specimens. JAMA 2020;doi:10.1001/jama.2020.3786.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. [14].↵
    Bai Y, Yao L, Wei T, Tian F, Jin DY, Chen L, et al. Presumed Asymptomatic Carrier Transmission of COVID-19. JAMA 2020;doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2565.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. [15].↵
    Wu Z, McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and Important Lessons From the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in China: Summary of a Report of 72314 Cases From the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA 2020;doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2648.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted April 22, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Saliva Sample as a Non-Invasive Specimen for the Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19): a Cross-Sectional Study
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Saliva Sample as a Non-Invasive Specimen for the Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19): a Cross-Sectional Study
Ekawat Pasomsub, Siriorn P. Watcharananan, Kochawan Boonyawat, Pareena Janchompoo, Garanyuta Wongtabtim, Worramin Suksuwan, Somnuek Sungkanuparph, Angsana Phuphuakrat
medRxiv 2020.04.17.20070045; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.17.20070045
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Saliva Sample as a Non-Invasive Specimen for the Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19): a Cross-Sectional Study
Ekawat Pasomsub, Siriorn P. Watcharananan, Kochawan Boonyawat, Pareena Janchompoo, Garanyuta Wongtabtim, Worramin Suksuwan, Somnuek Sungkanuparph, Angsana Phuphuakrat
medRxiv 2020.04.17.20070045; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.17.20070045

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (160)
  • Allergy and Immunology (412)
  • Anesthesia (90)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (855)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (156)
  • Dermatology (97)
  • Emergency Medicine (247)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (392)
  • Epidemiology (8534)
  • Forensic Medicine (4)
  • Gastroenterology (381)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (1739)
  • Geriatric Medicine (167)
  • Health Economics (370)
  • Health Informatics (1234)
  • Health Policy (618)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (467)
  • Hematology (196)
  • HIV/AIDS (369)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (10271)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (552)
  • Medical Education (192)
  • Medical Ethics (51)
  • Nephrology (210)
  • Neurology (1666)
  • Nursing (97)
  • Nutrition (247)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (325)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (450)
  • Oncology (925)
  • Ophthalmology (262)
  • Orthopedics (100)
  • Otolaryngology (172)
  • Pain Medicine (110)
  • Palliative Medicine (40)
  • Pathology (249)
  • Pediatrics (534)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (246)
  • Primary Care Research (205)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (1757)
  • Public and Global Health (3826)
  • Radiology and Imaging (622)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (317)
  • Respiratory Medicine (518)
  • Rheumatology (207)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (164)
  • Sports Medicine (156)
  • Surgery (190)
  • Toxicology (36)
  • Transplantation (100)
  • Urology (74)