Mitnala Sasikala1, Yelamanchili Sadhana2, Ketavarapu Vijayasarathy3, Anand Gupta4, Sarala Kumari Daram4, Naveen Chander Reddy Podduturi4, Duvvur Nageshwar Reddy5. 1. Department of Molecular Biology, Institute of Translational Research, Asian Healthcare Foundation, AIG Hospitals, Survey No 136, Plot No 2/3/4/5, 1, Mindspace Road, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500032, India. aigres.mit@gmail.om. 2. Department of Microbiology, AIG Hospitals, Survey No 136, Plot No 2/3/4/5, 1, Mindspace Road, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500032, India. 3. Department of Molecular Biology, Institute of Translational Research, Asian Healthcare Foundation, AIG Hospitals, Survey No 136, Plot No 2/3/4/5, 1, Mindspace Road, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500032, India. 4. Department of Critical Care Medicine, AIG Hospitals, Survey No 136, Plot No 2/3/4/5, 1, Mindspace Road, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500032, India. 5. Department of Medical Gastroenterology, AIG Hospitals, Survey No 136, Plot No 2/3/4/5, 1, Mindspace Road, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500032, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A considerable amount of evidence demonstrates the potential of saliva in the diagnosis of COVID-19. Our aim was to determine the sensitivity of saliva versus swabs collected by healthcare workers (HCWs) and patients themselves to assess whether saliva detection can be offered as a cost-effective, risk-free method of SARS-CoV-2 detection. METHODS: This study was conducted in a hospital involving outpatients and hospitalized patients. A total of 3018 outpatients were tested. Of these, 200 qRT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were recruited for further study. In addition, 101 SARS-CoV-2-positive hospitalized patients with symptoms were also enrolled in the study. From outpatients, HCWs collected nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), saliva were obtained. From inpatients, HCWs collected swabs, patient-collected swabs, and saliva were obtained. qRT-PCR was performed to detect SARS-CoV-2 by TAQPATH assay to determine the sensitivity of saliva detection. Sensitivity, specificity and positive/negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) of detecting SARS-CoV-2 were calculated using MedCalc. RESULTS: Of 3018 outpatients (asymptomatic: 2683, symptomatic: 335) tested by qRT-PCR, 200 were positive (males: 140, females: 60; aged 37.9 ± 12.8 years; (81 asymptomatic, 119 symptomatic). Of these, saliva was positive in 128 (64%); 39 of 81 asymptomatic (47%),89 of 119 symptomatic patients (74.8%). Sensitivity of detection was 60.9% (55.4-66.3%, CI 95%), with a negative predictive value of 36%(32.9-39.2%, CI 95%).Among 101 hospitalized patients (males:65, females: 36; aged 53.48 ± 15.6 years), with HCW collected NPS as comparator, sensitivity of saliva was 56.1% (47.5-64.5, CI 95%), specificity 63.5%(50.4-75.3, CI95%) with PPV of 77.2% and NPV of 39.6% and that of self-swab was 52.3%(44-60.5%, CI95%), specificity 56.6% (42.3-70.2%, CI95%) with PPV 77.2% and NPV29.7%. Comparison of positivity with the onset of symptoms revealed highest detection in saliva on day 3 after onset of symptoms. Additionally, only saliva was positive in 13 (12.8%) hospitalized patients. CONCLUSION: Saliva which is easier to collect than nasopharyngeal swab is a viable alternate to detect SARS-COV-2 in symptomatic patients in the early stage of onset of symptoms. Although saliva is currently not recommended for screening asymptomatic patients, optimization of collection and uniform timing of sampling might improve the sensitivity enabling its use as a screening tool at community level.
BACKGROUND: A considerable amount of evidence demonstrates the potential of saliva in the diagnosis of COVID-19. Our aim was to determine the sensitivity of saliva versus swabs collected by healthcare workers (HCWs) and patients themselves to assess whether saliva detection can be offered as a cost-effective, risk-free method of SARS-CoV-2 detection. METHODS: This study was conducted in a hospital involving outpatients and hospitalized patients. A total of 3018 outpatients were tested. Of these, 200 qRT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were recruited for further study. In addition, 101 SARS-CoV-2-positive hospitalized patients with symptoms were also enrolled in the study. From outpatients, HCWs collected nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), saliva were obtained. From inpatients, HCWs collected swabs, patient-collected swabs, and saliva were obtained. qRT-PCR was performed to detect SARS-CoV-2 by TAQPATH assay to determine the sensitivity of saliva detection. Sensitivity, specificity and positive/negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) of detecting SARS-CoV-2 were calculated using MedCalc. RESULTS: Of 3018 outpatients (asymptomatic: 2683, symptomatic: 335) tested by qRT-PCR, 200 were positive (males: 140, females: 60; aged 37.9 ± 12.8 years; (81 asymptomatic, 119 symptomatic). Of these, saliva was positive in 128 (64%); 39 of 81 asymptomatic (47%),89 of 119 symptomatic patients (74.8%). Sensitivity of detection was 60.9% (55.4-66.3%, CI 95%), with a negative predictive value of 36%(32.9-39.2%, CI 95%).Among 101 hospitalized patients (males:65, females: 36; aged 53.48 ± 15.6 years), with HCW collected NPS as comparator, sensitivity of saliva was 56.1% (47.5-64.5, CI 95%), specificity 63.5%(50.4-75.3, CI95%) with PPV of 77.2% and NPV of 39.6% and that of self-swab was 52.3%(44-60.5%, CI95%), specificity 56.6% (42.3-70.2%, CI95%) with PPV 77.2% and NPV29.7%. Comparison of positivity with the onset of symptoms revealed highest detection in saliva on day 3 after onset of symptoms. Additionally, only saliva was positive in 13 (12.8%) hospitalized patients. CONCLUSION: Saliva which is easier to collect than nasopharyngeal swab is a viable alternate to detect SARS-COV-2 in symptomatic patients in the early stage of onset of symptoms. Although saliva is currently not recommended for screening asymptomatic patients, optimization of collection and uniform timing of sampling might improve the sensitivity enabling its use as a screening tool at community level.
Authors: Yuan-Po Tu; Rachel Jennings; Brian Hart; Gerard A Cangelosi; Rachel C Wood; Kevin Wehber; Prateek Verma; Deneen Vojta; Ethan M Berke Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: E Pasomsub; S P Watcharananan; K Boonyawat; P Janchompoo; G Wongtabtim; W Suksuwan; S Sungkanuparph; A Phuphuakrat Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Rachel L Byrne; Grant A Kay; Konstantina Kontogianni; Ghaith Aljayyoussi; Lottie Brown; Andrea M Collins; Luis E Cuevas; Daniela M Ferreira; Alice J Fraser; Gala Garrod; Helen Hill; Grant L Hughes; Stefanie Menzies; Elena Mitsi; Sophie I Owen; Edward I Patterson; Christopher T Williams; Angela Hyder-Wright; Emily R Adams; Ana I Cubas-Atienzar Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: Anne L Wyllie; John Fournier; Arnau Casanovas-Massana; Melissa Campbell; Maria Tokuyama; Pavithra Vijayakumar; Joshua L Warren; Bertie Geng; M Catherine Muenker; Adam J Moore; Chantal B F Vogels; Mary E Petrone; Isabel M Ott; Peiwen Lu; Arvind Venkataraman; Alice Lu-Culligan; Jonathan Klein; Rebecca Earnest; Michael Simonov; Rupak Datta; Ryan Handoko; Nida Naushad; Lorenzo R Sewanan; Jordan Valdez; Elizabeth B White; Sarah Lapidus; Chaney C Kalinich; Xiaodong Jiang; Daniel J Kim; Eriko Kudo; Melissa Linehan; Tianyang Mao; Miyu Moriyama; Ji E Oh; Annsea Park; Julio Silva; Eric Song; Takehiro Takahashi; Manabu Taura; Orr-El Weizman; Patrick Wong; Yexin Yang; Santos Bermejo; Camila D Odio; Saad B Omer; Charles S Dela Cruz; Shelli Farhadian; Richard A Martinello; Akiko Iwasaki; Nathan D Grubaugh; Albert I Ko Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 176.079