TY - JOUR T1 - VALIDATION OF A SALIVA-BASED TEST FOR THE MOLECULAR DIAGNOSIS OF SARS-CoV-2 INFECTION JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2021.09.10.21263072 SP - 2021.09.10.21263072 AU - Michela Bulfoni AU - Emanuela Sozio AU - Barbara Marcon AU - Maria De Martino AU - Daniela Cesselli AU - Chiara De Carlo AU - Romina Martinella AU - Angelica Migotti AU - Eleonora Vania AU - Agnese Zanus-Fortes AU - Jessica De Piero AU - Emanuele Nencioni AU - Carlo Tascini AU - Miriam Isola AU - Francesco Curcio Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/15/2021.09.10.21263072.abstract N2 - Background Since the beginning of the pandemic, clinicians and researchers have been searching for alternative tests to improve screening and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Y. Yang et al., medRxiv 2020; W. Wang et al., 2020.3786; A Senok et al., Infect Drug Resist 2020). Currently, the gold standard for virus identification is the nasopharyngeal (NP) swab (N. Sethuraman et al., JAMA 2020; A.J. Jamal et al Clinical Infect Disease 2021). Saliva samples, however, offer clear practical and logistical advantages (K.K.W To et al, Clinical Microb and Infect; A.L. Wylle et al. N Engl J Med 2020; N. Matic et al, Eur J Clin 2021) but due to lack of collection, transport, and storage solutions, high-throughput saliva-based laboratory tests are difficult to scale up as a screening or diagnostic tool (D. Esser et al., Biomark Insights 2008; E. Kaufman et al., Crit Rev Oral Biol Med2002). With this study, we aimed to validate an intra-laboratory molecular detection method for SARS-CoV-2 on saliva samples collected in a new storage saline solution, comparing the results to NP swabs to determine the difference in sensitivity between the two tests.Methods In this study, 156 patients (cases) and 1005 asymptomatic subjects (controls) were enrolled and tested simultaneously for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 viral genome by RT-PCR on both NP swab and saliva samples. Saliva samples were collected in a preservative and inhibiting saline solution (Biofarma Srl). Internal method validation was performed to standardize the entire workflow for saliva samples.Results The identification of SARS-CoV-2 conducted on saliva samples showed a clinical sensitivity of 95.1% and specificity of 97.8% compared to NP swabs. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 81% while the negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.5%. Test concordance was 97.6% (Cohen’s Kappa=0.86; 95% CI 0.81-0.91). The LoD of the test was 5 viral copies for both samples.Conclusions RT-PCR assays conducted on a stored saliva sample achieved similar performance to those on NP swabs and this may provide a very effective tool for population screening and diagnosis. Collection of saliva in a stabilizing solution makes the test more convenient and widely available; furthermore, the denaturing properties of the solution reduce the infective risks belonging to sample manipulation.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research was funded by PRIN 2017 n.20178S4EK9 -Innovative statistical methods in biomedical research on biomarkers: from their identification to their use in clinical practice- Author 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:Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the Region Friuli Venezia Giulia, Italy. Consent CEUR-2021-OS-14All 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.YesThe authors confirm that all relevant data are included in the article and materials are available on request.ABBREVIATIONSCOVID-19Coronavirus Disease 19SARS-CoV-2Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-CoronaVirus-2NPNasopharyngeal SwabRT-PCRReverse transcription polymerase chain reactionPPVPositive Predicted ValueNPVNegative Predicted ValueCtCycle thresholdICUIntensive Care UnitLoDLimit of DetectionRTRoom TemperatureCIConfidence IntervalsSDStandard DeviationIQRInterquartile RangeHRHazard Ratio ER -