TY - JOUR T1 - Evaluation of saliva sampling procedures for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics reveals differential sensitivity and association with viral load JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.10.06.20207902 SP - 2020.10.06.20207902 AU - Pieter Mestdagh AU - Michel Gillard AU - Marc Arbyn AU - Jean-Paul Pirnay AU - Jeroen Poels AU - Jan Hellemans AU - Eliana Peeters AU - Veronik Hutse AU - Celine Vermeiren AU - Maxime Boutier AU - Veerle De Wever AU - Patrick Soentjens AU - Sarah Djebara AU - Hugues Malonne AU - Emmanuel André AU - John Smeraglia AU - Jo Vandesompele Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/13/2020.10.06.20207902.abstract N2 - Nasopharyngeal sampling has been the preferential collection method for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. Alternative sampling procedures that are less invasive and do not require a healthcare professional would be more preferable for patients and health professionals. Saliva collection has been proposed as such a possible alternative sampling procedure. We evaluated the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 testing on two different saliva collection devices (spitting versus swabbing) compared to nasopharyngeal swabs in over 2500 individuals that were either symptomatic or had high-risk contacts with infected individuals. We observed an overall poor sensitivity in saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection (30.8% and 22.4% for spitting and swabbing, respectively). However, when focusing on individuals with medium to high viral load, sensitivity increased substantially (97.0% and 76.7% for spitting and swabbing, respectively), irrespective of symptomatic status. Our results suggest that saliva cannot readily replace nasopharyngeal sampling for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics but may enable identification of cases with medium to high viral loads.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding was receivedAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study S64125 was approved by the ethical review committee of the University Hospital of Leuven on May, 29 2020.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as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).YesI 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.YesAll data are available as supplemental tables. ER -