RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 SalivaAll: Clinical validation of a sensitive test for saliva collected in healthcare and community settings with pooling utility for SARS-CoV-2 mass surveillance
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.08.26.20182816
DO 10.1101/2020.08.26.20182816
A1 Sahajpal, Nikhil S
A1 Mondal, Ashis K
A1 Ananth, Sudha
A1 Njau, Allan
A1 Ahluwalia, Pankaj
A1 Chaubey, Alka
A1 Kota, Vamsi
A1 Caspary, Kevin
A1 Ross, Ted M
A1 Farrell, Michael
A1 Shannon, Michael P.
A1 Rojiani, Amyn M
A1 Kolhe, Ravindra
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/01/2020.08.26.20182816.abstract
AB Background The adoption of saliva as a specimen type for SARS-CoV-2 mass surveillance can significantly increase population compliance with decreased exposure risk for healthcare workers. However, studies evaluating the clinical performance of saliva compared to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples have demonstrated conflicting results regardless of the collection being in healthcare or community settings. Further, pooled testing with saliva remains a challenge owing to the ambiguous sensitivity, limit of detection (LoD), and processing challenges. To overcome these limitations, SalivaAll protocol was developed and validated as a cost-effective measure that must be used on saliva collected in health care or community settings with pooling utility for SARS-CoV-2 mass surveillance.Methods The study evaluated 429 matched NPS and saliva samples collected from 344 individuals in either healthcare or community setting. In phase I (protocol U), 240 matched NPS, and saliva samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-PCR. In phase II (SalivaAll protocol), 189 matched NPS and saliva samples were tested, with an additional sample homogenization step for saliva before RNA extraction, followed by RT-PCR. Eighty-five saliva samples were evaluated with both protocols (U and SalivaAll). Subsequently, adopting SalivaAll protocol, a five-sample pooling strategy was evaluated for saliva samples based on FDA recommendations.Results In phase I, 28.3% (68/240) samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from either saliva, NPS, or both. The detection rate was lower in saliva compared to NPS samples (50.0% vs. 89.7%). In phase II, 50.2% (95/189) samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from either saliva, NPS, or both. The detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 was higher in saliva compared to NPS testing (97.8% vs. 78.9%). Of the 85 saliva samples evaluated by both protocols, 57.6% (49) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with either protocol U, SalivaAll, or both. The detection rate was 100% for samples tested with SalivaAll, whereas it was 36.7% with protocol U. Also, the LoD with SalivaAll protocol was 20 copies/ml. The pooled testing approach demonstrated a 95% positive and 100% negative percent agreement.Conclusion This single-site study demonstrated the variability of results reported in the literature for saliva samples, and found that the discrepancies are explained by processing challenges associated with saliva samples. We have optimized a protocol for saliva samples that results in higher sensitivity compared to NPS samples and also breaks the barrier to using pooled saliva testing for SARS-CoV-2.Summary SalivaAll is a very sensitive (LoD 20 copies/ml) cost-effective test validated on saliva collected in health care and community settings with pooling utility and submitted for FDA Emergency Use Authorization.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo funding was received for this work.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:All studies were performed under a approved protocol (HAC 611298) by the Institutional Review Board at Augusta University.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 is available within the manuscript.