Multiplatform Assessment of Saliva for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection in Symptomatic Healthcare Personnel and Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department

Robert F. Potter; Eric M. Ransom; Meghan A. Wallace; Caitlin Johnson; Jennie H. Kwon; Hilary M. Babcock; Charles S. Eby; Neil W. Anderson; Bijal A. Parikh; Carey Ann D. Burnham

doi:10.1093/jalm/jfab115

Multiplatform Assessment of Saliva for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection in Symptomatic Healthcare Personnel and Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department

Robert F. Potter, Eric M. Ransom, Meghan A. Wallace, Caitlin Johnson, Jennie H. Kwon, Hilary M. Babcock, Charles S. Eby, Neil W. Anderson, Bijal A. Parikh, Carey Ann D. Burnham

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

3 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: Saliva has garnered great interest as an alternative specimen type for molecular detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Data are limited on the relative performance of different molecular methods using saliva specimens and the relative sensitivity of saliva to nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. Methods: To address the gap in knowledge, we enrolled symptomatic healthcare personnel (n = 250) from Barnes-Jewish Hospital/Washington University Medical Center and patients presenting to the Emergency Department with clinical symptoms compatible with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; n = 292). We collected paired saliva specimens and NP swabs. The Lyra SARS-CoV-2 assay (Quidel) was evaluated on paired saliva and NP samples. Subsequently we compared the Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit (Diasorin) and a modified SalivaDirect (Yale) assay on a subset of positive and negative saliva specimens. Results: The positive percent agreement (PPA) between saliva and NP samples using the Lyra SARS-CoV-2 assay was 63.2%. Saliva samples had higher SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold values compared to NP swabs (P < 0.0001). We found a 76.47% (26/34) PPA for Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit on saliva and a 67.6% (23/34) PPA for SalivaDirect compared to NP swab results. Conclusion: These data demonstrate molecular assays have variability in performance for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	727-736
Number of pages	10
Journal	The journal of applied laboratory medicine
Volume	7
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfab115
State	Published - May 1 2022

Access to Document

10.1093/jalm/jfab115

Cite this

Potter, R. F., Ransom, E. M., Wallace, M. A., Johnson, C., Kwon, J. H., Babcock, H. M., Eby, C. S., Anderson, N. W., Parikh, B. A., & Burnham, C. A. D. (2022). Multiplatform Assessment of Saliva for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection in Symptomatic Healthcare Personnel and Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department. The journal of applied laboratory medicine, 7(3), 727-736. https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfab115

@article{1684515c924d407d9900fe8549040dc4,

title = "Multiplatform Assessment of Saliva for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection in Symptomatic Healthcare Personnel and Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department",

abstract = "Background: Saliva has garnered great interest as an alternative specimen type for molecular detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Data are limited on the relative performance of different molecular methods using saliva specimens and the relative sensitivity of saliva to nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. Methods: To address the gap in knowledge, we enrolled symptomatic healthcare personnel (n = 250) from Barnes-Jewish Hospital/Washington University Medical Center and patients presenting to the Emergency Department with clinical symptoms compatible with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; n = 292). We collected paired saliva specimens and NP swabs. The Lyra SARS-CoV-2 assay (Quidel) was evaluated on paired saliva and NP samples. Subsequently we compared the Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit (Diasorin) and a modified SalivaDirect (Yale) assay on a subset of positive and negative saliva specimens. Results: The positive percent agreement (PPA) between saliva and NP samples using the Lyra SARS-CoV-2 assay was 63.2%. Saliva samples had higher SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold values compared to NP swabs (P < 0.0001). We found a 76.47% (26/34) PPA for Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit on saliva and a 67.6% (23/34) PPA for SalivaDirect compared to NP swab results. Conclusion: These data demonstrate molecular assays have variability in performance for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.",

author = "Potter, {Robert F.} and Ransom, {Eric M.} and Wallace, {Meghan A.} and Caitlin Johnson and Kwon, {Jennie H.} and Babcock, {Hilary M.} and Eby, {Charles S.} and Anderson, {Neil W.} and Parikh, {Bijal A.} and Burnham, {Carey Ann D.}",

year = "2022",

month = may,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1093/jalm/jfab115",

language = "English",

volume = "7",

pages = "727--736",

journal = "The journal of applied laboratory medicine",

issn = "2576-9456",

number = "3",

}

Potter, RF, Ransom, EM, Wallace, MA, Johnson, C, Kwon, JH , Babcock, HM , Eby, CS, Anderson, NW, Parikh, BA & Burnham, CAD 2022, 'Multiplatform Assessment of Saliva for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection in Symptomatic Healthcare Personnel and Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department', The journal of applied laboratory medicine, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 727-736. https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfab115

Multiplatform Assessment of Saliva for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection in Symptomatic Healthcare Personnel and Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department. / Potter, Robert F.; Ransom, Eric M.; Wallace, Meghan A. et al.
In: The journal of applied laboratory medicine, Vol. 7, No. 3, 01.05.2022, p. 727-736.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Multiplatform Assessment of Saliva for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection in Symptomatic Healthcare Personnel and Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department

AU - Potter, Robert F.

AU - Ransom, Eric M.

AU - Wallace, Meghan A.

AU - Johnson, Caitlin

AU - Kwon, Jennie H.

AU - Babcock, Hilary M.

AU - Eby, Charles S.

AU - Anderson, Neil W.

AU - Parikh, Bijal A.

AU - Burnham, Carey Ann D.

PY - 2022/5/1

Y1 - 2022/5/1

N2 - Background: Saliva has garnered great interest as an alternative specimen type for molecular detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Data are limited on the relative performance of different molecular methods using saliva specimens and the relative sensitivity of saliva to nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. Methods: To address the gap in knowledge, we enrolled symptomatic healthcare personnel (n = 250) from Barnes-Jewish Hospital/Washington University Medical Center and patients presenting to the Emergency Department with clinical symptoms compatible with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; n = 292). We collected paired saliva specimens and NP swabs. The Lyra SARS-CoV-2 assay (Quidel) was evaluated on paired saliva and NP samples. Subsequently we compared the Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit (Diasorin) and a modified SalivaDirect (Yale) assay on a subset of positive and negative saliva specimens. Results: The positive percent agreement (PPA) between saliva and NP samples using the Lyra SARS-CoV-2 assay was 63.2%. Saliva samples had higher SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold values compared to NP swabs (P < 0.0001). We found a 76.47% (26/34) PPA for Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit on saliva and a 67.6% (23/34) PPA for SalivaDirect compared to NP swab results. Conclusion: These data demonstrate molecular assays have variability in performance for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.

AB - Background: Saliva has garnered great interest as an alternative specimen type for molecular detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Data are limited on the relative performance of different molecular methods using saliva specimens and the relative sensitivity of saliva to nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. Methods: To address the gap in knowledge, we enrolled symptomatic healthcare personnel (n = 250) from Barnes-Jewish Hospital/Washington University Medical Center and patients presenting to the Emergency Department with clinical symptoms compatible with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; n = 292). We collected paired saliva specimens and NP swabs. The Lyra SARS-CoV-2 assay (Quidel) was evaluated on paired saliva and NP samples. Subsequently we compared the Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit (Diasorin) and a modified SalivaDirect (Yale) assay on a subset of positive and negative saliva specimens. Results: The positive percent agreement (PPA) between saliva and NP samples using the Lyra SARS-CoV-2 assay was 63.2%. Saliva samples had higher SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold values compared to NP swabs (P < 0.0001). We found a 76.47% (26/34) PPA for Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit on saliva and a 67.6% (23/34) PPA for SalivaDirect compared to NP swab results. Conclusion: These data demonstrate molecular assays have variability in performance for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85128814734&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jalm/jfab115

DO - 10.1093/jalm/jfab115

M3 - Article

C2 - 34491341

AN - SCOPUS:85128814734

SN - 2576-9456

VL - 7

SP - 727

EP - 736

JO - The journal of applied laboratory medicine

JF - The journal of applied laboratory medicine

IS - 3

ER -

Multiplatform Assessment of Saliva for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection in Symptomatic Healthcare Personnel and Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this