Abstract
Emerging evidences have shown the utility of saliva for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by PCR as alternative to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS). However, conflicting results have been reported regarding viral loads between NPS and saliva. We conducted a study to compare the viral loads between NPS and saliva in 42 COVID-19 patients. Viral loads were estimated by the cycle threshold (Ct) values. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 34 (81%) using NPS with median Ct value of 27.4, and 38 (90%) using saliva with median Ct value of 28.9 (P = 0.79). Kendall’s W was 0.82, showing a high degree of agreement, indicating equivalent viral loads in NPS and saliva. After symptom onset, the Ct values of both NPS and saliva continued to increase over time, with no substantial difference. Self-collected saliva has a detection sensitivity comparable to that of NPS and is a useful diagnostic tool with mitigating uncomfortable process and the risk of aerosol transmission to healthcare workers.
Highlights
Emerging evidences have shown the utility of saliva for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by PCR as alternative to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS)
The cycle threshold (Ct) values of both NPS and saliva continued to increase over time, with no substantial difference (Fig. 1C)
Similar results were obtained from N1 primers/probe; the Ct values using the N1 primers/probe were equivalent between NPS and saliva, with median [IQR] of 31.0 [24.2, 39.5] and 33.1 [27.3, 37.3], respectively (Wilcoxon’s signed rank P = 0.24, Fig. 1B)
Summary
Emerging evidences have shown the utility of saliva for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by PCR as alternative to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS). Conflicting results have been reported regarding viral loads between NPS and saliva. We conducted a study to compare the viral loads between NPS and saliva in 42 COVID-19 patients. The detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids from nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) is considered a gold standard in the diagnosis, self-collected saliva has been reported to have several advantages[1]. Emerging evidences have shown the utility of saliva as an alternative to NPS2–6, conflicting results have been reported regarding SARS-CoV-2 viral loads between NPS and saliva. We conducted a study to compare the viral loads in paired samples (saliva and NPS) from symptomatic patients who were admitted for COVID-19
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
