Abstract
Background A high volume of testing followed by rapid isolation and quarantine measures is critical to the containment of SARS-CoV-2. RT-PCR of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) has been established as sensitive gold standard for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Yet, additional test strategies are in demand to increase and broaden testing opportunities. As one attractive option, saliva has been discussed as an alternative to NPS as its collection is simple, non-invasive, suited for children and amenable for mass- and home-testing.
Methods Here, we report on the outcome of a head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-PCR in saliva and nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) of 1187 adults and children reporting to outpatient test centers and an emergency unit for an initial SARS-CoV-2 screen.
Results In total, 252 individuals were tested SARS-CoV-2 positive in either NPS or saliva. SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results in the two specimens showed a high agreement (Overall Percent Agreement = 98.0%). Despite lower viral loads in saliva, we observed sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva up to a threshold of Ct 33 in the corresponding NPS (Positive Percent Agreement = 97.7%). In patients with Ct above 33 in NPS, agreement rate dropped but still reaches notable 55.9%.
Conclusion The comprehensive parallel analysis of NPS and saliva reported here establishes saliva as a reliable specimen for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 that can be readily added to the diagnostic portfolio to increase and facilitate testing.
Key points Comparison with nasopharyngeal swabs in a large test center-based study shows that saliva is a reliable and convenient material for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR in adults and children.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by grants of the Swiss federal office of public health (FOPH) and the University of Zurich Foundation to A.T. Roche Diagnostics supported the study with PCR kits and consumables. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
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:
The Zurich Cantonal Ethics Commission waived the necessity for a formal ethical evaluation based on the Swiss law on research on human subjects, as the collection of saliva in parallel to a scheduled nasopharyngeal swab induces no risk and no additional personal data beyond the usual information on symptoms and duration required by the FOPH for all SARS-CoV-2 tests in Switzerland was collected (Req-2020-00398).
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 data referred to in the manuscript are available from the corresponding author upon request.
