Saliva Is Comparable to Nasopharyngeal Swabs for Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2

Callahan, C.; Ditelberg, S.; Dutta, S.; Littlehale, N.; Cheng, A.; Kupczewski, K.; McVay, D.; Riedel, S.; Kirby, J. E.; Arnaout, R.

Abstract Background. The continued need for molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2 and promise of self-collected saliva as an alternative to nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs for sample acquisition led us to compare saliva to NP swabs in an outpatient setting, without special restrictions to avoid food, drink, smoking, or toothbrushing. Methods. A total of 385 pairs of NP and saliva specimens were obtained, the majority from individuals presenting for initial evaluation, and were tested on two high-sensitivity RT-PCR platforms: the Abbott m2000 and Abbott Alinity m, both with limits of detection (LoD) of 100 copies of viral RNA/mL. Results. Concordance between saliva and NP was excellent overall (Cohen's {kappa}=0.93) for initial as well as followup testing on both platforms, and for specimens treated with guanidinium transport medium as preservative and for untreated saliva ({kappa}=0.88-0.95). Viral loads were on average 16x higher in NP specimens than saliva specimens, suggesting that only the relatively small fraction of outpatients (~8% in this study) who present with very low viral loads (<1,600 copies/mL from NP swabs) would be missed by saliva testing relative to NP testing, for sensitive testing platforms. Special attention was necessary to ensure leak-resistant specimen collection and transport. Conclusions. The advantages of self-collection without additional restrictions will likely outweigh a minor potential decrease in clinical sensitivity in individuals less likely to pose an infectious risk to others for many real-world scenarios, especially for initial testing.