Comparison of Saliva and Mid-Turbinate Swabs for Detection of COVID-19

BackgroundSaliva is an attractive sample for detecting SARS-CoV-2. However, contradictory reports exist concerning the sensitivity of saliva versus nasal swabs. MethodsWe followed close contacts of COVID-19 cases for up to 14 days from last exposure and collected self-reported symptoms, mid-turbinate swabs (MTS), and saliva every two or three days. Ct values, viral load, and frequency of viral detection by MTS and saliva were compared. Results58 contacts provided 200 saliva-MTS pairs; 14 contacts (13 with symptoms) had one or more positive samples. Saliva and MTS had similar rates of viral detection (p=0.78) and substantial agreement ({kappa}=0.83). However, sensitivity varied significantly with time since symptom onset. Early on (days -3 to 2), saliva had 12 times (95%CI: 1.2, 130) greater likelihood of viral detection and 3.2 times (95% CI: 2.8, 3.8) higher RNA copy numbers compared to MTS. After day 2 post-symptoms, there was a non-significant trend toward greater sensitivity using MTS. ConclusionSaliva and MTS demonstrated high agreement making saliva a suitable alternative to MTS for COVID-19 detection. Saliva was more sensitive early in the infection when transmission is most likely to occur, suggesting that it may be a superior and cost-effective screening tool for COVID-19.

Infectious SARS-CoV-2 in Exhaled Aerosols and Efficacy of Masks During Early Mild Infection

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 epidemiology implicates airborne transmission; aerosol infectiousness and impacts of masks and variants on aerosol shedding are not well understood. MethodsWe recruited COVID-19 cases to give blood, saliva, mid-turbinate and fomite (phone) swabs, and 30-minute breath samples while vocalizing into a Gesundheit-II, with and without masks at up to two visits two days apart. We quantified and sequenced viral RNA, cultured virus, and assayed sera for anti-spike and anti-receptor binding domain antibodies. ResultsWe enrolled 49 seronegative cases (mean days post onset 3.8 {+/-}2.1), May 2020 through April 2021. We detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA in 45% of fine ([≤]5 {micro}m), 31% of coarse (>5 {micro}m) aerosols, and 65% of fomite samples overall and in all samples from four alpha-variant cases. Masks reduced viral RNA by 48% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3 to 72%) in fine and by 77% (95% CI, 51 to 89%) in coarse aerosols; cloth and surgical masks were not significantly different. The alpha variant was associated with a 43-fold (95% CI, 6.6 to 280-fold) increase in fine aerosol viral RNA, compared with earlier viruses, that remained a significant 18-fold (95% CI, 3.4 to 92-fold) increase adjusting for viral RNA in saliva, swabs, and other potential confounders. Two fine aerosol samples, collected while participants wore masks, were culture-positive. ConclusionSARS-CoV-2 is evolving toward more efficient aerosol generation and loose-fitting masks provide significant but only modest source control. Therefore, until vaccination rates are very high, continued layered controls and tight-fitting masks and respirators will be necessary. Key PointsO_LICases exhale infectious viral aerosols C_LIO_LISARS-CoV-2 evolution favors more efficient aerosol generation. C_LIO_LILoose-fitting masks moderately reduce viral RNA aerosol. C_LIO_LIVentilation, filtration, UV air sanitation, and tight-fitting masks are needed to protect vulnerable people in public-facing jobs and indoor spaces. C_LI