PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Chantal B.F. Vogels AU - Doug E. Brackney AU - Jianhui Wang AU - Chaney C. Kalinich AU - Isabel M. Ott AU - Eriko Kudo AU - Peiwen Lu AU - Arvind Venkataraman AU - Maria Tokuyama AU - Adam J. Moore AU - M. Catherine Muenker AU - Arnau Casanovas-Massana AU - John Fournier AU - Santos Bermejo AU - Melissa Campbell AU - Rupak Datta AU - Allison Nelson AU - Yale IMPACT Research Team AU - Charles S. Dela Cruz AU - Shelli F. Farhadian AU - Albert I. Ko AU - Akiko Iwasaki AU - Pei Hui AU - Chen Liu AU - Anne L. Wyllie AU - Nathan D. Grubaugh TI - SalivaDirect: Simple and sensitive molecular diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance AID - 10.1101/2020.08.03.20167791 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.08.03.20167791 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/04/2020.08.03.20167791.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/04/2020.08.03.20167791.full AB - Current bottlenecks for improving accessibility and scalability of SARS-CoV-2 testing include diagnostic assay costs, complexity, and supply chain shortages. To resolve these issues, we developed SalivaDirect. The critical component of our approach is to use saliva instead of respiratory swabs, which enables non-invasive frequent sampling and reduces the need for trained healthcare professionals during collection. Furthermore, we simplified our diagnostic test by (1) not requiring nucleic acid preservatives at sample collection, (2) replacing nucleic acid extraction with a simple proteinase K and heat treatment step, and (3) testing specimens with a dualplex quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) assay. We validated SalivaDirect with reagents and instruments from multiple vendors to minimize the risk for supply chain issues. Regardless of our tested combination of reagents and instruments from different vendors, we found that SalivaDirect is highly sensitive with a limit of detection of 6-12 SARS-CoV-2 copies/µL. When comparing paired nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva specimens using the authorized ThermoFisher Scientific TaqPath COVID-19 combo kit and our SalivaDirect protocol, we found high agreement in testing outcomes (>94%). Being flexible and inexpensive ($1.29-$4.37/sample), SalivaDirect is a viable and accessible option to help alleviate SARS-CoV-2 testing demands. We submitted SalivaDirect as a laboratory developed test to the US Food and Drug Administration for Emergency Use Authorization on July 14th, 2020, and current details can be found on our website (covidtrackerct.com/about-salivadirect/).One sentence summary SalivaDirect is an extraction-free, dualplex RT-qPCR laboratory developed test validated with reagents and instruments from multiple vendors and submitted for FDA Emergency Use Authorization.Competing Interest StatementALW has received research funding through grants from Pfizer to Yale and has received consulting fees for participation in advisory boards for Pfizer. The other authors declare no competing interests. Funding StatementThis study was funded by a clinical research agreement with the National Basketball Association and the National Basketball Players Association (NDG), the Huffman Family Donor Advised Fund (NDG), Fast Grant funding support from the Emergent Ventures at the Mercatus Center, George Mason University (NDG), the Yale Institute for Global Health (NDG), and the Beatrice Kleinberg Neuwirth Fund (AIK). CBFV is supported by NWO Rubicon 019.181EN.004.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:Institutional Review Board of the Yale Human Research Protection Program (FWA00002571, Protocol IDs. 2000027690 & 0409027018)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 included in this article, the supplementary files, and the Source Data.