Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from Saliva as Compared to Nasopharyngeal Swabs in Outpatients
- PMID: 33212817
- PMCID: PMC7697440
- DOI: 10.3390/v12111314
Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from Saliva as Compared to Nasopharyngeal Swabs in Outpatients
Abstract
Widely available and easily accessible testing for COVID-19 is a cornerstone of pandemic containment strategies. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are the currently accepted standard for sample collection but are limited by their need for collection devices and sampling by trained healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of saliva to NPS in an outpatient setting. This was a prospective study conducted at three centers, which compared the performance of saliva and NPS samples collected at the time of assessment center visit. Samples were tested by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and sensitivity and overall agreement determined between saliva and NPS. Clinical data was abstracted by chart review for select study participants. Of the 432 paired samples, 46 were positive for SARS-CoV-2, with seven discordant observed between the two sample types (four individuals testing positive only by NPS and three by saliva only). The observed agreement was 98.4% (kappa coefficient 0.91) and a composite reference standard demonstrated sensitivity of 0.91 and 0.93 for saliva and NPS samples, respectively. On average, the Ct values obtained from saliva as compared to NPS were higher by 2.76. This study demonstrates that saliva performs comparably to NPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Saliva was simple to collect, did not require transport media, and could be tested with equipment readily available at most laboratories. The use of saliva as an acceptable alternative to NPS could support the use of widespread surveillance testing for SARS-CoV-2.
Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; nasopharyngeal swab; saliva.
Conflict of interest statement
C.K., J.Z., J.M., J.E.P., K.V., L.F., E.S., C.V., K.K., A.M., and R.M. have no conflicts of interest to declare. M.A.S., H.R., M.D., and L.W.G. are employees of Dynacare (a subsidiary of Laboratory Corporation of America), which is a private, for-profit laboratory that offers diagnostic testing services to government and non-government clients. While the individuals noted herein will not personally benefit from this submission, the company could benefit financially if the test is commercially marketed.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Rapid review and meta-analysis.PLoS One. 2021 Jun 10;16(6):e0253007. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253007. eCollection 2021. PLoS One. 2021. PMID: 34111196 Free PMC article.
-
Diagnostic Performance of Self-Collected Saliva Versus Nasopharyngeal Swab for the Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in the Clinical Setting.Microbiol Spectr. 2021 Dec 22;9(3):e0046821. doi: 10.1128/Spectrum.00468-21. Epub 2021 Nov 3. Microbiol Spectr. 2021. PMID: 34730436 Free PMC article.
-
Saliva is Comparable to Nasopharyngeal Swabs for Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2.Microbiol Spectr. 2021 Sep 3;9(1):e0016221. doi: 10.1128/Spectrum.00162-21. Epub 2021 Aug 18. Microbiol Spectr. 2021. PMID: 34406838 Free PMC article.
-
Saliva Is a Promising Alternative Specimen for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Children and Adults.J Clin Microbiol. 2021 Jan 21;59(2):e02686-20. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02686-20. Print 2021 Jan 21. J Clin Microbiol. 2021. PMID: 33239380 Free PMC article.
-
Diagnostic performance of different sampling approaches for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Sep;21(9):1233-1245. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00146-8. Epub 2021 Apr 12. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021. PMID: 33857405 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Rapid review and meta-analysis.PLoS One. 2021 Jun 10;16(6):e0253007. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253007. eCollection 2021. PLoS One. 2021. PMID: 34111196 Free PMC article.
-
Validation of a Methodology for the Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Saliva by Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase-PCR.Front Public Health. 2021 Dec 2;9:743300. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.743300. eCollection 2021. Front Public Health. 2021. PMID: 34926372 Free PMC article.
-
One-Year Update on Salivary Diagnostic of COVID-19.Front Public Health. 2021 May 21;9:589564. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.589564. eCollection 2021. Front Public Health. 2021. PMID: 34150692 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A scoping review.Oral Dis. 2022 Nov;28 Suppl 2:2362-2390. doi: 10.1111/odi.14216. Epub 2022 Apr 27. Oral Dis. 2022. PMID: 35445491 Free PMC article.
-
Is saliva collected passively without forceful coughing sensitive to detect SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory cases? A systematic review.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2022 May;133(5):530-538. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2022.01.002. Epub 2022 Jan 10. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2022. PMID: 35227640 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Khurshid Z., Zohaib S., Joshi C., Moin S.F., Zafar M.S., Speicher D.J. Saliva as a non-invasive sample for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.05.09.20096354. - DOI
-
- Ott I., Simões M.S., Watkins A., Boot M., Kalinich C.C., Harden C.A., Wyllie A.L., Casanovas-Massana A., Moore A.J., Muenker C., et al. Simply saliva: Stability of SARS-CoV-2 detection negates the need for expensive collection devices. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.08.03.20165233. - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous