Validation of RT-qPCR test for SARS-CoV-2 in saliva specimens
- PMID: 36371937
- PMCID: PMC9628233
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jiph.2022.10.028
Validation of RT-qPCR test for SARS-CoV-2 in saliva specimens
Abstract
Background: Saliva samples may be an easier, faster, safer, and cost-saving alternative to NPS samples, and can be self-collected by the patient. Whether SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR in saliva is more accurate than in nasopharyngeal swaps (NPS) is uncertain. We evaluated the accuracy of the RT-qPCR in both types of samples, assuming both approaches were imperfect.
Methods: We assessed the limit of detection (LoD) of RT-qPCR in each type of sample. We collected paired NPS and saliva samples and tested them using the Berlin Protocol to detect SARS-CoV-2 envelope protein (E). We used a Bayesian latent class analysis (BLCA) to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of each test, while accounting for their conditional dependence.
Results: The LoD were 10 copies/mL in saliva and 100 copies/mL in NPS. Paired samples of saliva and NPS were collected in 412 participants. Out of 68 infected cases, 14 were positive only in saliva. RT-qPCR sensitivity ranged from 82.7 % (95 % CrI: 54.8, 94.8) in NPS to 84.5 % (50.9, 96.5) in saliva. Corresponding specificities were 99.1 % (95 % CrI: 95.3, 99.8) and 98.4 %(95 % CrI: 92.8, 99.7).
Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR test in saliva specimens has a similar or better accuracy than RT-qPCR test in NPS. Saliva specimens may be ideal for surveillance in general population, particularly in children, and in healthcare or other personnel in need of serial testing.
Keywords: Bayes Theorem; COVID-19 testing; Colombia; Latent class analysis; Polymerase chain reaction; SARS-CoV-2; Saliva; Sensitivity and specificity.
Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations of Interest None.
References
-
- World_Health_Organization. WHO coronavirus (COVID-19) dashboard; 2022.
-
- Sethuraman N., Jeremiah S.S., Ryo A. Interpreting diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2. JAMA. 2020;323:2249–2251. - PubMed
-
- Higgins T.S., Wu A.W., Ting J.Y. SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab testing—false-negative results from a pervasive anatomical misconception. JAMA Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2020;146:993–994. - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
