Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Infectious Diseases 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | SARS-CoV-2 | Research article

Comparison of saliva with healthcare workers- and patient-collected swabs in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in a large cohort

Authors: Mitnala Sasikala, Yelamanchili Sadhana, Ketavarapu Vijayasarathy, Anand Gupta, Sarala Kumari Daram, Naveen Chander Reddy Podduturi, Duvvur Nageshwar Reddy

Published in: BMC Infectious Diseases | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

A considerable amount of evidence demonstrates the potential of saliva in the diagnosis of COVID-19. Our aim was to determine the sensitivity of saliva versus swabs collected by healthcare workers (HCWs) and patients themselves to assess whether saliva detection can be offered as a cost-effective, risk-free method of SARS-CoV-2 detection.

Methods

This study was conducted in a hospital involving outpatients and hospitalized patients. A total of 3018 outpatients were tested. Of these, 200 qRT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were recruited for further study. In addition, 101 SARS-CoV-2-positive hospitalized patients with symptoms were also enrolled in the study. From outpatients, HCWs collected nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), saliva were obtained. From inpatients, HCWs collected swabs, patient-collected swabs, and saliva were obtained. qRT-PCR was performed to detect SARS-CoV-2 by TAQPATH assay to determine the sensitivity of saliva detection. Sensitivity, specificity and positive/negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) of detecting SARS-CoV-2 were calculated using MedCalc.

Results

Of 3018 outpatients (asymptomatic: 2683, symptomatic: 335) tested by qRT-PCR, 200 were positive (males: 140, females: 60; aged 37.9 ± 12.8 years; (81 asymptomatic, 119 symptomatic). Of these, saliva was positive in 128 (64%); 39 of 81 asymptomatic (47%),89 of 119 symptomatic patients (74.8%). Sensitivity of detection was 60.9% (55.4–66.3%, CI 95%), with a negative predictive value of 36%(32.9–39.2%, CI 95%).Among 101 hospitalized patients (males:65, females: 36; aged 53.48 ± 15.6 years), with HCW collected NPS as comparator, sensitivity of saliva was 56.1% (47.5–64.5, CI 95%), specificity 63.5%(50.4–75.3, CI95%) with PPV of 77.2% and NPV of 39.6% and that of self-swab was 52.3%(44–60.5%, CI95%), specificity 56.6% (42.3–70.2%, CI95%) with PPV 77.2% and NPV29.7%. Comparison of positivity with the onset of symptoms revealed highest detection in saliva on day 3 after onset of symptoms. Additionally, only saliva was positive in 13 (12.8%) hospitalized patients.

Conclusion

Saliva which is easier to collect than nasopharyngeal swab is a viable alternate to detect SARS-COV-2 in symptomatic patients in the early stage of onset of symptoms. Although saliva is currently not recommended for screening asymptomatic patients, optimization of collection and uniform timing of sampling might improve the sensitivity enabling its use as a screening tool at community level.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Pasomsub E, Watcharananan SP, Boonyawat K, Janchompoo P, Wongtabtim G, Suksuwan W, et al. Saliva sample as a non-invasive specimen for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019: a cross-sectional study. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;27:285–e1.PubMedPubMedCentral Pasomsub E, Watcharananan SP, Boonyawat K, Janchompoo P, Wongtabtim G, Suksuwan W, et al. Saliva sample as a non-invasive specimen for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019: a cross-sectional study. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;27:285–e1.PubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Kojima N, Turner F, Slepnev V, Bacelar A, Deming L, Kodeboyina S, Klausner JD: Self-collectedoral fluid and nasal swab specimens demonstrate comparable sensitivity to clinician-collected nasopharyngeal swab specimens for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1589. Kojima N, Turner F, Slepnev V, Bacelar A, Deming L, Kodeboyina S, Klausner JD: Self-collectedoral fluid and nasal swab specimens demonstrate comparable sensitivity to clinician-collected nasopharyngeal swab specimens for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2020. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​cid/​ciaa1589.
10.
go back to reference Nagura-Ikeda M, Imai K, Tabata S, Miyoshi K, Murahara N, Mizuno T, et al. Clinical evaluation of self-collected saliva by quantitative Reverse Transcription-PCR (RT-qPCR), direct RT-qPCR, Reverse Transcription-Loop-Mediated Isothermal amplification, and a rapid Antigen Test to Diagnose COVID-19. J Clin Microbiol. 2020;58(9):e01438–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nagura-Ikeda M, Imai K, Tabata S, Miyoshi K, Murahara N, Mizuno T, et al. Clinical evaluation of self-collected saliva by quantitative Reverse Transcription-PCR (RT-qPCR), direct RT-qPCR, Reverse Transcription-Loop-Mediated Isothermal amplification, and a rapid Antigen Test to Diagnose COVID-19. J Clin Microbiol. 2020;58(9):e01438–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Hamid H, Khurshid Z, Adanir N, Zafar MS, Zohaib S: COVID-19 Pandemic and Role of Human Saliva as a Testing Biofluid in Point-of-Care Technology. European journal of dentistry 2020;14(S 01):S123-S129. Hamid H, Khurshid Z, Adanir N, Zafar MS, Zohaib S: COVID-19 Pandemic and Role of Human Saliva as a Testing Biofluid in Point-of-Care Technology. European journal of dentistry 2020;14(S 01):S123-S129.
17.
go back to reference Torretta S, Zuccotti G, Cristofaro V, Ettori J, Solimeno L, Battilocchi L, et al. Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR using different sample sources: review of the literature. Ear Nose Throat J. 2020;145561320953231. Torretta S, Zuccotti G, Cristofaro V, Ettori J, Solimeno L, Battilocchi L, et al. Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR using different sample sources: review of the literature. Ear Nose Throat J. 2020;145561320953231.
20.
go back to reference Jamal AJ, Mozafarihashjin M, Coomes E, Powis J, Li AX, Paterson A, Anceva-Sami S, Barati S, Crowl G, Faheem A et al: Sensitivity of nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021; 72(6):1064-1066. Jamal AJ, Mozafarihashjin M, Coomes E, Powis J, Li AX, Paterson A, Anceva-Sami S, Barati S, Crowl G, Faheem A et al: Sensitivity of nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021; 72(6):1064-1066.
21.
go back to reference McCormick-Baw C, Morgan K, Gaffney D, Cazares Y, Jaworski K, Byrd A, et al. Saliva as an alternate specimen source for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients using Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2. J Clin Microbiol. 2020;58(8):e01109–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral McCormick-Baw C, Morgan K, Gaffney D, Cazares Y, Jaworski K, Byrd A, et al. Saliva as an alternate specimen source for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients using Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2. J Clin Microbiol. 2020;58(8):e01109–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Becker D, Sandoval E, Amin A, De Hoff P, Diets A, Leonetti N, Lim YW, Elliott C, Laurent L, Grzymski J et al: Saliva is less sensitive than nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 detection in the community setting. medRxiv 2020:2020.2005.2011.20092338. Becker D, Sandoval E, Amin A, De Hoff P, Diets A, Leonetti N, Lim YW, Elliott C, Laurent L, Grzymski J et al: Saliva is less sensitive than nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 detection in the community setting. medRxiv 2020:2020.2005.2011.20092338.
23.
go back to reference Wyllie AL, Fournier J, Casanovas-Massana A, Campbell M, Tokuyama M, Vijayakumar P, et al. medRxiv. 2020; 2020041620067835 2020. Wyllie AL, Fournier J, Casanovas-Massana A, Campbell M, Tokuyama M, Vijayakumar P, et al. medRxiv. 2020; 2020041620067835 2020.
Metadata
Title
Comparison of saliva with healthcare workers- and patient-collected swabs in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in a large cohort
Authors
Mitnala Sasikala
Yelamanchili Sadhana
Ketavarapu Vijayasarathy
Anand Gupta
Sarala Kumari Daram
Naveen Chander Reddy Podduturi
Duvvur Nageshwar Reddy
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2334
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06343-w

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Infectious Diseases 1/2021 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.