Saliva as a Biological Fluid in SARS-CoV-2 Detection
Emily Thalia Teixeira Silva,
Fabiana Barcelos Furtado,
Rosana Antunes da Silveira,
Karen Ingrid Tasca,
Cristiane Nonato Silva,
Amanda Thais Godoy,
Leonardo Nazario de Moraes,
Michelle Venancio Hong,
Camila Gonçalves Alves,
Rafael Plana Simões,
Agatha Mayume Silva Kubo,
Carlos Magno Castelo Branco Fortaleza,
Maria Cristina Pereira-Lima,
Guilherme Targino Valente,
Rejane Maria Tommasini Grotto
Affiliations
Emily Thalia Teixeira Silva
Laboratory of Applied Biotechnology, Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu 18618-689, Brazil
Fabiana Barcelos Furtado
Laboratory of Applied Biotechnology, Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu 18618-689, Brazil
Rosana Antunes da Silveira
Laboratory of Applied Biotechnology, Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu 18618-689, Brazil
Karen Ingrid Tasca
Department of Infectious Diseases, Dermatology, Imaging Diagnosis, and Radiotherapy, Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu 18618-689, Brazil
Cristiane Nonato Silva
Laboratory of Applied Biotechnology, Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu 18618-689, Brazil
Amanda Thais Godoy
Laboratory of Applied Biotechnology, Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu 18618-689, Brazil
Leonardo Nazario de Moraes
Laboratory of Applied Biotechnology, Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu 18618-689, Brazil
Michelle Venancio Hong
Department of Infectious Diseases, Dermatology, Imaging Diagnosis, and Radiotherapy, Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu 18618-689, Brazil
Camila Gonçalves Alves
Department of Infectious Diseases, Dermatology, Imaging Diagnosis, and Radiotherapy, Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu 18618-689, Brazil
Rafael Plana Simões
Department of Bioprocess and Biotechnology, School of Agriculture, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu 18618-689, Brazil
Agatha Mayume Silva Kubo
Laboratory of Applied Biotechnology, Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu 18618-689, Brazil
Carlos Magno Castelo Branco Fortaleza
Department of Infectious Diseases, Dermatology, Imaging Diagnosis, and Radiotherapy, Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu 18618-689, Brazil
Maria Cristina Pereira-Lima
Department of Neurology, Psychology and Psychiatry, Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu 18618-689, Brazil
Guilherme Targino Valente
Laboratory of Applied Biotechnology, Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu 18618-689, Brazil
Rejane Maria Tommasini Grotto
Laboratory of Applied Biotechnology, Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu 18618-689, Brazil
Background: The polymerase chain reaction of upper respiratory tract swab samples was established as the gold standard procedure for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID pandemic. However, saliva collection has attracted attention as an alternative diagnostic collection method. The goal of this study was to compare the use of saliva and nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Methods: Ninety-nine paired samples were evaluated for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by saliva and swab for a qualitative diagnosis and quantitative comparison of viral particles. Furthermore, the detection limits for each sample collection technique were determined. The cycle threshold (CT) values of the saliva samples, the vaccination status, and the financial costs associated with each collection technique were compared. Results: The results showed qualitative equivalence in diagnosis (96.96%) comparing saliva and swab collection, although there was low quantitative agreement. Furthermore, the detection limit test demonstrated equivalence for both collection methods. We did not observe a statistically significant association between CT values and vaccination status, indicating that the vaccine had no influence on viral load at diagnosis. Finally, we observed that the use of saliva incurs lower financial costs and requires less use of plastic materials, making it more sustainable. Conclusions: These findings support the adoption of saliva collection as a feasible and sustainable alternative to the diagnosis of COVID-19.