Abstract
Background Active cases of COVID-19 has primarily been diagnosed via RT-PCR of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. Saliva and self-administered nasal (SN) swabs can be collected safely without trained staff.
We aimed to test the sensitivity of “naso-oropharyngeal” saliva and SN swabs compared to NP swabs in a large cohort of migrant workers in Singapore.
Methods We recruited 200 male adult subjects: 45 with acute respiratory infection, 104 asymptomatic close contacts, and 51 confirmed COVID-19 cases. Each subject underwent NP swab, SN swab and saliva collection for RT-PCR testing at 1 to 3 timepoints. We additionally used a direct-from-sample amplicon-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) workflow to establish phylogeny.
Results Of 200 subjects, 91 and 46 completed second and third rounds of testing, respectively. Of 337 sets of tests, there were 150 (44.5%) positive NP swabs, 127 (37.7%) positive SN swabs, and 209 (62.0%) positive saliva.
Test concordance between different sample sites was good, with a kappa statistic of 0.616 for NP and SN swabs, and 0.537 for NP and saliva. In confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 subjects, the likelihood of a positive test from any sample fell beyond 14 days of symptom onset.
NGS was conducted on 18 SN and saliva samples, with phylogenetic analyses demonstrating lineages for all samples tested were Clade O (GISAID nomenclature) and lineage B.6 (PANGOLIN nomenclature).
Conclusion This study supports saliva as a sensitive and less intrusive sample for COVID-19 diagnosis and further delineates the role of oropharyngeal secretions in increasing the sensitivity of testing. However, SN swabs were inferior as an alternate sample type. Our study also provides evidence that a straightforward next-generation sequencing workflow can provide direct-from-sample phylogenetic analysis for public health decision-making.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by a grant from the Changi Airport Group. Fortitude 2.1 kits were provided by the Diagnostics Development Hub (DxD Hub), A*ccelerate, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore. The study sponsor had no role in the design, implementation, analysis or write-up of the study.
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 approved by the Director of Medical Services, Ministry of Health under the Singapore Infectious Disease Act.
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
All test data in the manuscript are available for sharing on request.
