Abstract
Background Saliva is an attractive sample for detecting SARS-CoV-2 because it is easy to collect and minimally invasive. However, contradictory reports exist concerning the sensitivity of saliva versus nasal swabs.
Methods We recruited and followed close contacts of COVID-19 cases for up to 14 days from their last exposure and collected self-reported symptoms, mid-turbinate swabs (MTS) and saliva every two or three days. Ct values and frequency of viral detection by MTS and saliva were compared. Logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of detection by days since symptom onset for the two sample types.
Results We enrolled 58 contacts who provided a total of 200 saliva and MTS sample pairs; 14 contacts (13 with symptoms) had one or more positive samples. Overall, saliva and MTS had similar rates of viral detection (p=0.78). Although Ct values for saliva were significantly greater than for MTS (p=0.014), Cohen’s Kappa demonstrated substantial agreement (κ=0.83). However, sensitivity varied significantly with time relative to symptom onset. Early in the course of infection (days -3 to 2), saliva had 12 times (95%CI: 1.2, 130) greater likelihood of detecting viral RNA compared to MTS. After day 2, there was a non-significant trend to greater sensitivity using MTS samples.
Conclusion Saliva and MTS specimens demonstrated high agreement, making saliva a suitable alternative to MTS nasal swabs for COVID-19 detection. Furthermore, saliva was more sensitive than MTS early in the course of infection, suggesting that it may be a superior and cost-effective screening tool for COVID-19.
Key Points
Saliva is more sensitive in detecting symptomatic cases of COVID-19 than MTS early in the course of infection.
Saliva performs best in the pre-symptomatic period.
Saliva and MTS demonstrated high agreement making saliva a suitable and cost-effective COVID-19 screening tool.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by Prometheus-UMD, sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) BTO under the auspices of Col. Matthew Hepburn through agreement N66001-18-2-4015. This work was also supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Centers of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance (CEIRS) Contract Number HHSN272201400008C, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Contract Number 200-2020-09528. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policy of these funding agencies and no official endorsement should be inferred. This work was also supported by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and a generous gift from The Flu Lab (https://theflulab.org). The funders had no role in study design, data collection, 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:
This study was approved by the University of Maryland Institutional Review Board and the Human Research Protection Office of the Department of the Navy.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
Deidentified data and code for the accepted manuscript will be made available on github.
