Back

Evaluation of specimen types and saliva stabilization solutions for SARS-CoV-2 testing

Griesemer, S. B.; Van Slyke, G.; Ehrbar, D.; Strle, K.; Yildirim, T.; Centurioni, D. A.; Walsh, A. C.; Chang, A. K.; Waxman, M. J.; St. George, K.

2020-06-18 infectious diseases
10.1101/2020.06.16.20133041
Show abstract

Identifying SARS-CoV-2 infections through aggressive diagnostic testing remains critical in tracking and curbing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Collection of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), the preferred sample type for SARS-CoV-2 detection, has become difficult due to the dramatic increase in testing and consequential supply strain. Therefore, alternative specimen types have been investigated, that provide similar detection sensitivity with reduced health care exposure and potential for self-collection. In this study, the detection sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 in nasal swabs (NS) and saliva was compared to that of NPS, using matched specimens from two outpatient cohorts in New York State (total n = 463). The first cohort showed only a 5.4% positivity but the second cohort (n=227) had a positivity rate of 41%, with sensitivity in NPS, NS and saliva of 97.9%, 87.1%, and 87.1%, respectively. Whether the reduced sensitivity of NS or saliva is acceptable must be assessed in the settings where they are used. However, we sought to improve on it by validating a method to mix the two sample types, as the combination of nasal swab and saliva resulted in 94.6% SARS-CoV-2 detection sensitivity. Spiking experiments showed that combining them did not adversely affect the detection sensitivity in either. Virus stability in saliva was also investigated, with and without the addition of commercially available stabilizing solutions. The virus was stable in saliva at both 4{degrees}C and room temperature for up to 7 days. The addition of stabilizing solutions did not enhance stability and in some situations reduced detectable virus levels.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 17%
21.1%
2
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
based on 77 papers
Top 0.4%
14.2%
3
Microbiology Spectrum
based on 86 papers
Top 0.1%
8.9%
4
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 38%
4.8%
5
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
based on 14 papers
Top 0.1%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
6
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
based on 15 papers
Top 0.1%
3.2%
7
Journal of Virological Methods
based on 20 papers
Top 0.7%
2.7%
8
Journal of Medical Virology
based on 95 papers
Top 4%
2.5%
9
Diagnostics
based on 36 papers
Top 2%
2.5%
10
Journal of Clinical Virology
based on 54 papers
Top 1%
2.5%
11
Clinical Chemistry
based on 14 papers
Top 0.6%
1.7%
12
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
based on 24 papers
Top 1%
1.7%
13
Emerging Infectious Diseases
based on 84 papers
Top 6%
1.7%
14
Journal of Medical Microbiology
based on 14 papers
Top 0.2%
1.7%
15
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
based on 115 papers
Top 16%
0.9%
16
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
based on 124 papers
Top 9%
0.9%
17
Analytical Chemistry
based on 15 papers
Top 1%
0.9%
18
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
based on 17 papers
Top 2%
0.9%
19
mSphere
based on 27 papers
Top 2%
0.9%
20
Clinical Infectious Diseases
based on 219 papers
Top 18%
0.9%
21
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 39%
0.9%
22
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
based on 137 papers
Top 11%
0.7%
23
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
based on 50 papers
Top 10%
0.7%
24
Viruses
based on 79 papers
Top 6%
0.7%
25
Heliyon
based on 57 papers
Top 12%
0.7%