Abstract
RT-qPCR utilising upper respiratory swabs are the diagnostic gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 despite reported low sensitivity and limited scale up due to global shortages. Saliva is a non-invasive, equipment independent alternative to swabs.
We collected 145 paired saliva and nasal/throat (NT) swabs at diagnosis (day 0) and repeated on day 2 and day 7 dependent on inpatient care and day 28 for study follow up. Laboratory cultured virus was used to determine the analytical sensitivity of spiked saliva and swabs containing amies preservation media.
Self-collected saliva samples were found to be consistent, and in some cases superior when compared to healthcare worker collected NT swabs from COVID-19 suspected participants. We report for the first time the analytical limit of detection of 10−2and 100 pfu/ml for saliva and swabs respectively.
Saliva is a easily self-collected, highly sensitive specimen for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the DFID/Wellcome Trust Epidemic Preparedness coronavirus grant (220764/Z/20/Z) and Pfizer grant (WI255862) (DMF, EM, AC). ERA and LEC are funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, the Centre of Excellence in Infectious Diseases Research (CEIDR) and the Alder Hey Charity. We also acknowledge support of Liverpool Health Partners and the Liverpool-Malawi-Covid-19 Consortium.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was reviewed and approved by the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (20/SC/0169) IRAS number 282147.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Recruitment is ongoing so data isn't currently available. Upon completion we will publish all the findings from the FASTER study.
