TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical Validation of a Sensitive Test for Saliva Collected in Healthcare and Community Settings with Pooling Utility for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Mass Surveillance
AU - Sahajpal, Nikhil S.
AU - Mondal, Ashis K.
AU - Ananth, Sudha
AU - Njau, Allan
AU - Ahluwalia, Pankaj
AU - Kota, Vamsi
AU - Caspary, Kevin
AU - Ross, Ted M.
AU - Farrell, Michael
AU - Shannon, Michael P.
AU - Fulzele, Sadanand
AU - Chaubey, Alka
AU - Hegde, Madhuri
AU - Rojiani, Amyn M.
AU - Kolhe, Ravindra
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank Dr. Brooks Keel, President, Augusta University and Augusta University Health Sciences, for strategic, science-based, data-driven leadership in all matters COVID-19, and constant support and encouragement at every step of this work. Disclosures: R.K. has received honoraria, travel funding, and research support from Illumina, Asuragen, Qiagen, and BMS. M.H. holds stock options at PerkinElmer Inc. This project has been funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a component of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services (75N93019C00052).
Funding Information:
Disclosures: R.K. has received honoraria, travel funding, and research support from Illumina, Asuragen, Qiagen, and BMS. M.H. holds stock options at PerkinElmer Inc. This project has been funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a component of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services (75N93019C00052).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Association for Molecular Pathology and American Society for Investigative Pathology
PY - 2021/7
Y1 - 2021/7
N2 - The clinical performance of saliva compared with nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) has shown conflicting results in healthcare and community settings. In the present study, a total of 429 matched NPS and saliva sample pairs, collected in either healthcare or community setting, were evaluated. Phase-1 (protocol U) tested 240 matched NPS and saliva sample pairs; phase 2 (SalivaAll protocol) tested 189 matched NPS and saliva sample pairs, with an additional sample homogenization step before RNA extraction. A total of 85 saliva samples were evaluated with both protocols. In phase-1, 28.3% (68/240) samples tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from saliva, NPS, or both. The detection rate from saliva was lower compared with that from NPS samples (50.0% versus 89.7%). In phase-2, 50.2% (95/189) samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from saliva, NPS, or both. The detection rate from saliva was higher compared with that from NPS samples (97.8% versus 78.9%). Of the 85 saliva samples evaluated with both protocols, the detection rate was 100% for samples tested with SalivaAll, and 36.7% with protocol U. The limit of detection with SalivaAll protocol was 20 to 60 copies/mL. The pooled testing approach demonstrated a 95% positive and 100% negative percentage agreement. This protocol for saliva samples results in higher sensitivity compared with NPS samples and breaks the barrier to using pooled saliva for SARS-CoV-2 testing.
AB - The clinical performance of saliva compared with nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) has shown conflicting results in healthcare and community settings. In the present study, a total of 429 matched NPS and saliva sample pairs, collected in either healthcare or community setting, were evaluated. Phase-1 (protocol U) tested 240 matched NPS and saliva sample pairs; phase 2 (SalivaAll protocol) tested 189 matched NPS and saliva sample pairs, with an additional sample homogenization step before RNA extraction. A total of 85 saliva samples were evaluated with both protocols. In phase-1, 28.3% (68/240) samples tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from saliva, NPS, or both. The detection rate from saliva was lower compared with that from NPS samples (50.0% versus 89.7%). In phase-2, 50.2% (95/189) samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from saliva, NPS, or both. The detection rate from saliva was higher compared with that from NPS samples (97.8% versus 78.9%). Of the 85 saliva samples evaluated with both protocols, the detection rate was 100% for samples tested with SalivaAll, and 36.7% with protocol U. The limit of detection with SalivaAll protocol was 20 to 60 copies/mL. The pooled testing approach demonstrated a 95% positive and 100% negative percentage agreement. This protocol for saliva samples results in higher sensitivity compared with NPS samples and breaks the barrier to using pooled saliva for SARS-CoV-2 testing.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85108998722&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85108998722&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2021.04.005
DO - 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2021.04.005
M3 - Article
C2 - 33957320
AN - SCOPUS:85108998722
SN - 1525-1578
VL - 23
SP - 788
EP - 795
JO - Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
JF - Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
IS - 7
ER -