Clinical evaluation of self-collected saliva by RT-qPCR, direct RT-qPCR, RT-LAMP, and a rapid antigen test to diagnose COVID-19

Background The clinical performance of six molecular diagnostic tests and a rapid antigen test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were clinically evaluated for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in self-collected saliva. Methods Saliva samples from 103 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (15 asymptomatic and 88 symptomatic) were collected on the day of hospital admission. SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva was detected using a quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) laboratory-developed test (LDT), a cobas SARS-CoV-2 high-throughput system, three direct RT-qPCR kits, and reverse-transcription loop mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP). Viral antigen was detected by a rapid antigen immunochromatographic assay. Results Of the 103 samples, viral RNA was detected in 50.5-81.6% of the specimens by molecular diagnostic tests and an antigen was detected in 11.7% of the specimens by the rapid antigen test. Viral RNA was detected at a significantly higher percentage (65.6-93.4%) in specimens collected within 9 d of symptom onset compared to that of specimens collected after at least 10 d of symptom onset (22.2-66.7%) and that of asymptomatic patients (40.0-66.7%). Viral RNA was more frequently detected in saliva from males than females. Conclusions Self-collected saliva is an alternative specimen diagnosing COVID-19. LDT RT-qPCR, cobas SARS-CoV-2 high-throughput system, direct RT-qPCR except for one commercial kit, and RT-LAMP showed sufficient sensitivity in clinical use to be selectively used according to clinical settings and facilities. The rapid antigen test alone is not recommended for initial COVID-19 diagnosis because of its low sensitivity.

in Japan [18]. On the day of admission, saliva specimens (~500 μ L) were self-collected by all  Saliva specimens were diluted with phosphate-buffered saline at a volume 1-5 times in 1 1 2 accordance with the consistency and mixed with a vortex mixer. The suspension was 1 1 3 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 8, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020 centrifuged at 20,000 × g for 30 min at 4 °C and the supernatant was used in the following 1 1 4 molecular diagnostic and RAT. (NIID) protocol which is nationally recommended for SARS-CoV-2 detection in Japan [18]. primer and probe sets indicated the presence of viral RNA. Direct RT-qPCR methods without RNA extraction were performed using three

Detection of viral RNA by automated RT-qPCR device
The cobas SARS-CoV-2 test (Roche, Basel, Switzerland) [7,21] was performed on the SARS-CoV-2 RNA was defined as "detected" if targets 1 and 2 were detected or 1 4 5 "presumptive positive" if target 1 was not detected but target 2 was detected. RT-LAMP detection of SARS-CoV-2 was performed using a Loopamp®  . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 8, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.06.20124123 doi: medRxiv preprint which was provided by a RAT kit into the saliva specimen and then into the sample of the antigen assay. Subsequently, 2 drops of buffer were added and the results were

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 viral antigen by rapid antigen test
interpreted after a 30 min incubation. The saliva sample collection day was defined as day 1. Symptomatic cases were Written informed consent was obtained from each enrolled patient at the Self-Defense Forces Central Hospital. This study was reviewed and approved by the Self-Defense Forces Central Hospital (approval number 02-024) and International University of Health and Welfare (20-Im-002-2).

6 9
Statistical analysis 1 7 0 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 8, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.06.20124123 doi: medRxiv preprint 1 0 Continuous variables with a normal distribution were expressed as mean (± SD) and Kruskal-Wallis test was used for nonparametric analysis with over three independent samples. Linear regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between each molecular sensitivity than either Method A or C. Only 12 patients tested positive using the RAT. The Ct values for the N-1 and N-2 primer sets for the direct RT-qPCR Method C (35.5 1 8 8 ± 2.2 and 34.8 ± 2.4, respectively) were significantly (p < 0.001) greater than those for LDT 1 8 9 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. was significantly lower in saliva samples that tested positive by RAT compared to that of 1 9 5 samples that tested negative (25.4 ± 1.8 vs. 30.8 ± 2.7, respectively; p < 0.001; Figure 2B). On the day of admission, 15 patients (14.6%) who did not display any symptoms were phase, and asymptomatic patients tested positive by molecular diagnostic tests 65.6-93.4%, from asymptomatic patients (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in prevalence of 2 0 7 positive results by RAT among the three groups. . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

Effect of clinical background on the prevalence of viral RNA in saliva
The baseline clinical characteristics of the 103 patients enrolled in this study are 2 1 0 presented in Table 2 The effect of clinical background against the prevalence of viral RNA in saliva was that tested positive for the virus compared to that of samples which tested negative (69.0% vs. 42.1%, respectively; p = 0.035) ( Table 2). There were no significant differences in 2 2 1 distribution by age or disease activity between patients detected or undetected with viral RNA 2 2 2 (p > 0.05).

3
A summary of clinical symptoms and disease severity is shown for 88 symptomatic 2 2 4 patients in with viral RNA in their saliva compared to 4 of 14 patients (28.6%) who did not test positive 2 2 6 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 8, 2020. Here, we present evidence for the clinical usefulness of saliva specimens in diagnosing collected during the early phase of symptom onset to increase sensitivity. the salivary gland and tongue tissues as well as nasal mucosa, nasopharynx, and lung tissue 2 4 5 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 8, 2020. affect the viral load in saliva and be associated with the difference in diagnostic sensitivity 2 5 0 between males and females. We did not observe significant differences in disease severity or was detected in more than 50% of the asymptomatic patients. These findings support asymptomatic patients [14]. Therefore, our findings revealed that saliva, collected in the early 2 5 7 phase of symptom onset, is a reliable and practical source for the screening and diagnosing of 2 5 8 COVID-19.

5 9
The clinical performance of direct RT-qPCR kits and RT-LAMP, and any correlation for SARS-CoV-2 using upper and lower respiratory tract specimens has been reported as 2 6 3 equivalent to 6,28]. However, our results indicate that the sensitivity of 2 6 4 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 8, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020 12.

5 6
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 8, 2020.  Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 8, 2020.  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 8, 2020. Fisher's exact test for categorical variables.

4
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 8, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.06.20124123 doi: medRxiv preprint