Evaluation of symptomatic patient saliva as a sample type for the Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 assay

  1. Jeffrey A. SoRelle
  2. Lenin Mahimainathan
  3. Clare McCormick-Baw
  4. Dominick Cavuoti
  5. Francesca Lee
  6. Anjali Bararia
  7. Abey Thomas
  8. Ravi Sarode
  9. Andrew E. Clark
  10. Alagarraju Muthukumar

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has presented significant challenges for laboratories including supply chain limitations with restricted access to reagents and sample collection materials (i.e. swabs, viral transport media (VTM)) for patients testing. Therefore, saliva has been evaluated as an alternative specimen for COVID-19 diagnosis. comparable performance between dry nasal swabs (NS) and nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) collected in VTM has been observed with the ID NOW for SARS-CoV-2; the majority of false-negative results occur with higher cycle number (CN) or cycle threshold (Ct) values suggesting low viral load in these specimens. We performed clinical validation of saliva specimens on the ID NOW molecular platform to detect SARS-CoV-2. Saliva was compared to nasopharyngeal swabs tested on the ID NOW and the Cepheid molecular assay. We also performed stability studies of saliva samples over 5 days. A total of 96 saliva samples and 64 paired NPS were analyzed. We observed 78% (18/23) positive percent agreement (PPA) and 100% (44/44) negative percent agreement (NPA) between matched saliva and nasopharyngeal specimens performed on ID NOW. We found 83% (19/23) PPA and 100% NPA (25/25) between saliva run on the ID NOW and Cepheid assay. Six saliva specimens positive for SARS-CoV-2 were continuously positive for five days when stored at room temperature. Therefore, we propose further investigation of saliva as an alternative sample type for testing symptomatic patients with ID NOW as a promising method to address COVID-19 testing.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.01.20119198: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.01.20119198 on medRxiv