Performance of qualitative and quantitative antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 in early symptomatic patients using saliva

BackgroundThe rapid detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an urgent need for the prevention and containment of disease outbreaks in communities. Although the gold standard is polymerase chain reaction (PCR), antigen tests such as immunochromatographic assay (ICA) and chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA) that can yield results within 30 minutes. MethodsWe evaluated performance of ICA and CLEIA using 34 frozen PCR-positive specimens (17 saliva and 17 nasopharyngeal swab) and 307 PCR-negative samples. ResultsICA detected SARS-CoV-2 in only 14 (41%) samples, with positivity of 24% in saliva and 59% in NPS. Notably, ICA detected SARS-CoV-2 in 5 (83%) of 6 samples collected within 4 days after symptom onset. CLEIA detected SARS-CoV-2 in 31 (91%) samples, with positivity of 82% in saliva and 100% in NPS. CLEIA was negative in 3 samples with low viral load by PCR. ConclusionsThese results suggest that use of ICA should be limited to earlier time after symptom onset and CLEIA is more sensitive and can be used in situations where quick results are required.

Mass screening of asymptomatic persons for SARS-CoV-2 using saliva

BackgroundCOVID-19 has rapidly evolved to become a global pandemic due largely to the transmission of its causative virus through asymptomatic carriers. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic people is an urgent priority for the prevention and containment of disease outbreaks in communities. However, few data are available in asymptomatic persons regarding the accuracy of PCR testing. Additionally, although self-collected saliva has significant logistical advantages in mass screening, its utility as an alternative specimen in asymptomatic persons is yet to be determined. MethodsWe conducted a mass-screening study to compare the utility of nucleic acid amplification, such as reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, using NPS and saliva samples from each individual in two cohorts of asymptomatic persons: the contact tracing cohort and the airport quarantine cohort. ResultsIn this mass-screening study including 1,924 individuals, the sensitivity of nucleic acid amplification testing with nasopharyngeal and saliva specimens were 86% (90%CI:77-93%) and 92% (90%CI:83-97%), respectively, with specificities greater than 99.9%. The true concordance probability between the nasopharyngeal and saliva tests was estimated at 0.998 (90%CI:0.996-0.999) on the estimated airport prevalence, 0.3%. In positive individuals, viral load was highly correlated between NPS and saliva. ConclusionBoth nasopharyngeal and saliva specimens had high sensitivity and specificity. Self-collected saliva is a valuable specimen to detect SARS-CoV-2 in mass screening of asymptomatic persons.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection in nasopharyngeal swab and saliva

We prospectively compared the efficacy of PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 between paired nasopharyngeal and saliva samples in nine COVID-19 patients. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in saliva in 8 of 9 (89%) patients and in all 11 samples taken within 2 weeks after disease onset. Viral load was equivalent at earlier time points but declined in saliva than nasopharyngeal samples. PCR negativity was also concordant in all 27 saliva samples from 24 patients between nasopharyngeal and saliva samples. These results suggest that saliva is a reliable noninvasive alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs and facilitate widespread PCR testing in the face of shortages of swabs and protective equipment without posing a risk to healthcare workers.

Efficacy of a novel SARS-CoV-2 detection kit without RNA extraction and purification

Rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 is critical for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and preventing the spread of the virus. A novel "2019 Novel Coronavirus Detection Kit (nCoV-DK)" halves detection time by eliminating the steps of RNA extraction and purification. We evaluated concordance between the nCoV-DK and direct PCR. The virus was detected in 53/71 fresh samples by the direct method and 55/71 corresponding frozen samples by the nCoV-DK. The overall concordance rate of the virus detection between the two methods was 94.4% (95% CI, 86.2-98.4). Concordance rates were 95.2% (95% CI, 83.8-99.4), 95.5% (95% CI, 77.2-99.9), 85.7% (95% CI, 42.1-99.6) in nasopharyngeal swab, saliva, and sputum samples, respectively. These results indicate that the nCoV-DK effectively detects SARS-CoV-2 in all types of the samples including saliva, while reducing time required for detection, labor, and risk of human error.