Abstract
Identifying SARS-CoV-2 infections through aggressive diagnostic testing remains critical in tracking and curbing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Collection of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), the preferred sample type for SARS-CoV-2 detection, has become difficult due to the dramatic increase in testing and consequential supply strain. Therefore, alternative specimen types have been investigated, that provide similar detection sensitivity with reduced health care exposure and potential for self-collection. In this study, the detection sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 in nasal swabs (NS) and saliva was compared to that of NPS, using matched specimens from two outpatient cohorts in New York State (total n = 463). The first cohort showed only a 5.4% positivity but the second cohort (n=227) had a positivity rate of 41%, with sensitivity in NPS, NS and saliva of 97.9%, 87.1%, and 87.1%, respectively. Whether the reduced sensitivity of NS or saliva is acceptable must be assessed in the settings where they are used. However, we sought to improve on it by validating a method to mix the two sample types, as the combination of nasal swab and saliva resulted in 94.6% SARS-CoV-2 detection sensitivity. Spiking experiments showed that combining them did not adversely affect the detection sensitivity in either. Virus stability in saliva was also investigated, with and without the addition of commercially available stabilizing solutions. The virus was stable in saliva at both 4°C and room temperature for up to 7 days. The addition of stabilizing solutions did not enhance stability and in some situations reduced detectable virus levels.
Competing Interest Statement
SBG, GVS, DE, TY, DAC, ACW, AKC, and MJW declare no conflict of interest. KS has served as a paid consultant for T2 Biosystems and Roche Diagnostics. KSG receives research support from ThermoFisher for the evaluation of new assays for the diagnosis and characterization of viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. She also has a royalty generating collaborative agreement with Zeptometrix.
Funding Statement
This project was performed with internal funding from the New York State Department of Health and Albany Medical Center.
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:
This study was granted non-research determination under the emergency response criterion by the New York State Department of Health Institutional Review Board.
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
Data Availability
The authors declare that data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
