ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Aerosol inhalation is recognized as the dominant mode of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Three highly transmissible lineages evolved during the pandemic. One hypothesis to explain increased transmissibility is that natural selection favors variants with higher rates of viral aerosol shedding. However, the extent of aerosol shedding of successive SARS-CoV-2 variants is unknown. We aimed to measure the infectivity and rate of SARS-CoV-2 shedding into exhaled breath aerosol (EBA) by individuals during the Delta and Omicron waves and compared those rates with those of prior SARS-CoV-2 variants from our previously published work. METHODS: COVID-19 cases (n = 93, 32 vaccinated and 20 boosted) were recruited to give samples, including 30-minute breath samples into a Gesundheit-II exhaled breath aerosol sampler. Samples were quantified for viral RNA using RT-PCR and cultured for virus. RESULTS: Alpha (n = 4), Delta (n = 3), and Omicron (n = 29) cases shed significantly more viral RNA copies into exhaled breath aerosols than cases infected with ancestral strains and variants not associated with increased transmissibility (n = 57). All Delta and Omicron cases were fully vaccinated and most Omicron cases were boosted. We cultured virus from the EBA of one boosted and three fully vaccinated cases. CONCLUSIONS: Alpha, Delta, and Omicron independently evolved high viral aerosol shedding phenotypes, demonstrating convergent evolution. Vaccinated and boosted cases can shed infectious SARS-CoV-2 via EBA. These findings support a dominant role of infectious aerosols in transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Monitoring aerosol shedding from new variants and emerging pathogens can be an important component of future threat assessments and guide interventions to prevent transmission.
ABSTRACT
Saliva is an attractive sample for detecting SARS-CoV-2. However, contradictory reports exist concerning the sensitivity of saliva versus nasal swabs. We followed close contacts of COVID-19 cases for up to 14 days from the last exposure and collected self-reported symptoms, midturbinate swabs (MTS), and saliva every 2 or 3 days. Ct values, viral load, and frequency of viral detection by MTS and saliva were compared. Fifty-eight contacts provided 200 saliva-MTS pairs, and 14 contacts (13 with symptoms) had one or more positive samples. Saliva and MTS had similar rates of viral detection (P = 0.78) and substantial agreement (κ = 0.83). However, sensitivity varied significantly with time since symptom onset. Early on (days -3 to 2), saliva had 12 times (95% CI: 1.2, 130) greater likelihood of viral detection and 3.2 times (95% CI: 2.8, 3.8) higher RNA copy numbers compared to MTS. After day 2 of symptoms, there was a nonsignificant trend toward greater sensitivity using MTS. Saliva and MTS demonstrated high agreement making saliva a suitable alternative to MTS for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Saliva was more sensitive early in the infection when the transmission was most likely to occur, suggesting that it may be a superior and cost-effective screening tool for COVID-19. IMPORTANCE The findings of this manuscript are increasingly important with new variants that appear to have shorter incubation periods emerging, which may be more prone to detection in saliva before detection in nasal swabs. Therefore, there is an urgent need to provide the science to support the use of a detection method that is highly sensitive and widely acceptable to the public to improve screening rates and early detection. The manuscript presents the first evidence that saliva-based RT-PCR is more sensitive than MTS-based RT-PCR in detecting SARS-CoV-2 during the presymptomatic period - the critical period for unwitting onward transmission. Considering other advantages of saliva samples, including the lower cost, greater acceptability within the general population, and less risk to health care workers, our findings further supported the use of saliva to identify presymptomatic infection and prevent transmission of the virus.