Abstract
Background Quantitative RT-PCR on NasoPharyngeal Swab (NPS) is still considered the standard for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, even if saliva has been evaluated in several studies as a possible alternative. The use of point of care (POC) platforms, providing highly specific results performed on saliva could simplify the diagnosis of COVID-19 and contribute to contain the spreading of SARS-CoV-2.
Methods We assess the sensitivity and specificity of molecular testing performed on saliva in comparison to NPS using two different POC platforms (DiaSorin Simplexa™ and Cepheid Xpert®). NPS and saliva were collected prospectically from asymptomatic health care workers and mildly symptomatic patients. Moreover, the stability of saliva samples after storage at -80°C for up to 45 days was tested.
Results The obtained results in comparison to NPS demonstrated for both DiaSorin Simplexa™ and Xpert® Xpress a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 90.24%. The overall agreement between the tests performed on saliva was 98%. A positive correlation in Ct values detected on saliva and on NPS was identified for all the targets shared by the tests in analysis (Orf1ab, E and N2). Both S Ct values and Orf1ab Ct values were not significantly different before and after the freezing in the tested saliva samples.
Conclusion The obtained results demonstrated an overall performance of saliva comparable to NPS, confirming that RT-PCR performed using POCs on saliva could represent a valid public health solution for controlling SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
.
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:
IRCSS San Raffaele Ethics committee
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
.
