Comparison of Levels of Nasal, Salivary, and Plasma Antibody to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 During Natural Infection and After Vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Most studies of immunity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) measure antibody or cellular responses in blood; however, the virus infects mucosal surfaces in the nose and conjunctivae and infectious virus is rarely if ever present in the blood. METHODS: We used luciferase immunoprecipitation assays to measure SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels in the plasma, nose, and saliva of infected persons and vaccine recipients. These assays measure antibody that can precipitate the SAR-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins. RESULTS: Levels of plasma anti-spike antibody declined less rapidly than levels of anti-nucleocapsid antibody in infected persons. SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibody levels in the nose declined more rapidly than antibody levels in the blood after vaccination of infected persons. Vaccination of previously infected persons boosted anti-spike antibody in plasma more than in the nose or saliva. Nasal and saliva anti-spike antibody levels were significantly correlated with plasma antibody in infected persons who had not been vaccinated and after vaccination of uninfected persons. CONCLUSIONS: Persistently elevated SARS-CoV-2 antibody in plasma may not indicate persistence of antibody at mucosal sites such as the nose. The strong correlation of SARS-CoV-2 antibody in the nose and saliva with that in the blood suggests that mucosal antibodies are derived primarily from transudation from the blood rather than local production. While SARS-CoV-2 vaccine given peripherally boosted mucosal immune responses in infected persons, the increase in antibody titers was higher in plasma than at mucosal sites. Taken together, these observations indicate the need for development of mucosal vaccines to induce potent immune responses at sites where SARS-CoV-2 infection occurs. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01306084.

Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.

We evaluated saliva (SAL) specimens for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) testing by comparison of 459 prospectively paired nasopharyngeal (NP) or midturbinate (MT) swabs from 449 individuals with the aim of using saliva for asymptomatic screening. Samples were collected in a drive-through car line for symptomatic individuals (n = 380) and in the emergency department (ED) (n = 69). The percentages of positive and negative agreement of saliva compared to nasopharyngeal swab were 81.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.8% to 90.5%) and 99.8% (95% CI, 98.7% to 100%), respectively. The percent positive agreement increased to 90.0% (95% CI, 74.4% to 96.5%) when considering only samples with moderate to high viral load (cycle threshold [CT ] for the NP, ≤34). Pools of five saliva specimens were also evaluated on three platforms, bioMérieux NucliSENS easyMAG with ABI 7500Fast (CDC assay), Hologic Panther Fusion, and Roche Cobas 6800. The average loss of signal upon pooling was 2 to 3 CT values across the platforms. The sensitivities of detecting a positive specimen in a pool compared with testing individually were 94%, 90%, and 94% for the CDC 2019-nCoV real-time RT-PCR, Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay, and Cobas SARS-CoV-2 test, respectively, with decreased sample detection trending with lower viral load. We conclude that although pooled saliva testing, as collected in this study, is not quite as sensitive as NP/MT testing, saliva testing is adequate to detect individuals with higher viral loads in an asymptomatic screening program, does not require swabs or viral transport medium for collection, and may help to improve voluntary screening compliance for those individuals averse to various forms of nasal collections.