Evaluation of saliva sampling procedures for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics reveals differential sensitivity and association with viral load
Abstract Nasopharyngeal sampling has been the preferential collection method for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. Alternative sampling procedures that are less invasive and do not require a healthcare professional would be more preferable for patients and health professionals. Saliva collection has been proposed as such a possible alternative sampling procedure. We evaluated the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 testing on two different saliva collection devices (spitting versus swabbing) compared to nasopharyngeal swabs in over 2500 individuals that were either symptomatic or had high-risk contacts with infected individuals. We observed an overall poor sensitivity in saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection (30.8% and 22.4% for spitting and swabbing, respectively). However, when focusing on individuals with medium to high viral load, sensitivity increased substantially (97.0% and 76.7% for spitting and swabbing, respectively), irrespective of symptomatic status. Our results suggest that saliva cannot readily replace nasopharyngeal sampling for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics but may enable identification of cases with medium to high viral loads..
| Medienart: |
|
|---|
Preprint| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2020 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2020 |
| Enthalten in: |
bioRxiv.org - (2020) vom: 20. Okt. Zur Gesamtaufnahme - year:2020 |
|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Mestdagh, Pieter [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
Volltext [kostenfrei] |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1101/2020.10.06.20207902 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
XBI019094787 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | XBI019094787 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230429091816.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 201014s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1101/2020.10.06.20207902 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)XBI019094787 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)biorXiv10.1101/2020.10.06.20207902 | ||
| 035 | |a (biorXiv)10.1101/2020.10.06.20207902 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | |a 570 |q DE-84 | |
| 100 | 1 | |a Mestdagh, Pieter |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Evaluation of saliva sampling procedures for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics reveals differential sensitivity and association with viral load |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2020 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Nasopharyngeal sampling has been the preferential collection method for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. Alternative sampling procedures that are less invasive and do not require a healthcare professional would be more preferable for patients and health professionals. Saliva collection has been proposed as such a possible alternative sampling procedure. We evaluated the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 testing on two different saliva collection devices (spitting versus swabbing) compared to nasopharyngeal swabs in over 2500 individuals that were either symptomatic or had high-risk contacts with infected individuals. We observed an overall poor sensitivity in saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection (30.8% and 22.4% for spitting and swabbing, respectively). However, when focusing on individuals with medium to high viral load, sensitivity increased substantially (97.0% and 76.7% for spitting and swabbing, respectively), irrespective of symptomatic status. Our results suggest that saliva cannot readily replace nasopharyngeal sampling for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics but may enable identification of cases with medium to high viral loads. | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a Gillard, Michel |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Arbyn, Marc |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Pirnay, Jean-Paul |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Poels, Jeroen |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hellemans, Jan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Peeters, Eliana |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hutse, Veronik |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Vermeiren, Celine |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Boutier, Maxime |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a De Wever, Veerle |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Soentjens, Patrick |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Djebara, Sarah |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Malonne, Hugues |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a André, Emmanuel |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Smeraglia, John |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Vandesompele, Jo |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t bioRxiv.org |g (2020) vom: 20. Okt. |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g year:2020 |g day:20 |g month:10 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.06.20207902 |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_XBI | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |j 2020 |b 20 |c 10 | ||
| 953 | |2 045F |a 570 | ||