Abstract
Background Diagnostic testing can identify outbreaks and inform preventive strategies for slowing the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. The “gold standard” method for detection of SARS-CoV-2 is reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) performed on samples collected using nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. While NP RT-qPCR achieves high sensitivity, it requires trained personnel to administer and suffers from lengthy time-to-result. Instead, rapid saliva-based reverse transcription loop-mediated amplification (RT-LAMP) screening methods may offer advantages in sample collection and speed.
Methods Regardless of symptomatic presentation, a total of 233 individuals were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using NP RT-qPCR, alongside saliva-based RT-qPCR (SalivirDetect) and RT-LAMP (SLAMP), a simple and rapid fluorometric RT-LAMP assay performed directly on heat-inactivated saliva without any additional treatments or RNA extraction. SLAMP is conducted in triplicate and takes 45 min. Samples found negative using both saliva-based methods but positive under CDC NP RT-qPCR above the saliva method LoD were excluded from evaluation, suggesting significant differences in viral titer between sampling sites. Individuals who consumed potential inhibitors in the form of food, drink, and oral health products within 30 min of sampling were identified using a self-reported questionnaire.
Results Of the 233 NP RT-qPCR tests, 58 were positive and 175 were negative. Comparatively, SLAMP resulted in 95% sensitivity and 98% specificity and SalivirDetect 97% sensitivity and 98% specificity. Prior consumption had no measurable effect on test outcomes, except for drinking, which lowered Ct values in saliva.
Conclusions SLAMP requires less technician and instrument time than CDC-approved NP RT-qPCR and demonstrates that saliva-based RT-LAMP can enable frequent and rapid identification of pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections with high sensitivity and specificity.
Competing Interest Statement
Connie B. Chang and James N. Wilking are co-founders of ULTSafety, Inc. which has licensed technology from Montana State University and Harvard University relating to this publication.
Funding Statement
This funding was supported by the State of Montana through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
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:
Montana State University IRB CC 101920
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
Footnotes
All figures and sections updated for clarity. Supplemental files updated for clarity.
Data Availability
Data is available by request to corresponding authors.
