Saliva is more sensitive for SARS-CoV-2 detection in COVID-19 patients than nasopharyngeal swabs
By
Anne L. Wyllie,
John Fournier,
Arnau Cassanovas-Massana,
Melissa Campbell,
Maria Tokuyama,
Pavithra Vijayakumar,
Bertie Geng,
M. Catherine Muenker,
Adam J. Moore,
Chantal B. F. Vogels,
Mary E. Petrone,
Isabel M. Ott,
Peiwen Lu,
Alice Lu-Culligan,
Jonathan Klein,
Arvind Venkataraman,
Rebecca Earnest,
Michael Simonov,
Rupak Datta,
Ryan Handoko,
Nida Naushad,
Lorenzo R. Sewanan,
Jordan Valdez,
Elizabeth B. White,
Sarah Lapidus,
Chaney C Kalinich,
Xiaodong Jiang,
Daniel J. Kim,
Eriko Kudo,
Melissa Linehan,
Tianyang Mao,
Miyu Moriyama,
Ji Eun Oh,
Annsea Park,
Julio Silva,
Eric Song,
Takehiro Takahashi,
Manabu Taura,
Orr-El Weizman,
Patrick Wong,
Yexin Yang,
Santos Bermejo,
Camila Odio,
Saad B. Omer,
Charles S. Dela Cruz,
Shelli Farhadian,
Richard A. Martinello,
Akiko Iwasaki,
Nathan D. Grubaugh,
Albert Ko
Posted 22 Apr 2020
medRxiv DOI: 10.1101/2020.04.16.20067835
Rapid and accurate SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing is essential for controlling the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The current gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis is real-time RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal swabs. Low sensitivity, exposure risks to healthcare workers, and global shortages of swabs and personal protective equipment, however, necessitate the validation of new diagnostic approaches. Saliva is a promising candidate for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics because (1) collection is minimally invasive and can reliably be self-administered and (2) saliva has exhibited comparable sensitivity to nasopharyngeal swabs in detection of other respiratory pathogens, including endemic human coronaviruses, in previous studies. To validate the use of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection, we tested nasopharyngeal and saliva samples from confirmed COVID-19 patients and self-collected samples from healthcare workers on COVID-19 wards. When we compared SARS-CoV-2 detection from patient-matched nasopharyngeal and saliva samples, we found that saliva yielded greater detection sensitivity and consistency throughout the course of infection. Furthermore, we report less variability in self-sample collection of saliva. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that saliva is a viable and more sensitive alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs and could enable at-home self-administered sample collection for accurate large-scale SARS-CoV-2 testing.
Download data
- Downloaded 83,663 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 105
- In infectious diseases: 40
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 1,795
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 3,121
Altmetric data
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
PanLingua
News
- 27 Nov 2020: The website and API now include results pulled from medRxiv as well as bioRxiv.
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!