SalivaDirect: Simple and sensitive molecular diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance

Current bottlenecks for improving accessibility and scalability of SARS-CoV-2 testing include diagnostic assay costs, complexity, and supply chain shortages. To resolve these issues, we developed SalivaDirect. The critical component of our approach is to use saliva instead of respiratory swabs, which enables non-invasive frequent sampling and reduces the need for trained healthcare professionals during collection. Furthermore, we simplified our diagnostic test by (1) not requiring nucleic acid preservatives at sample collection, (2) replacing nucleic acid extraction with a simple proteinase K and heat treatment step, and (3) testing specimens with a dualplex quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) assay. We validated SalivaDirect with reagents and instruments from multiple vendors to minimize the risk for supply chain issues. Regardless of our tested combination of reagents and instruments from different vendors, we found that SalivaDirect is highly sensitive with a limit of detection of 6-12 SARS-CoV-2 copies/L. When comparing paired nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva specimens using the authorized ThermoFisher Scientific TaqPath COVID-19 combo kit and our SalivaDirect protocol, we found high agreement in testing outcomes (>94%). Being flexible and inexpensive ($1.29-$4.37/sample), SalivaDirect is a viable and accessible option to help alleviate SARS-CoV-2 testing demands. We submitted SalivaDirect as a laboratory developed test to the US Food and Drug Administration for Emergency Use Authorization on July 14th, 2020, and current details can be found on our website (covidtrackerct.com/about-salivadirect/).

[1]  B. Reinius,et al.  Massive and rapid COVID-19 testing is feasible by extraction-free SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR , 2020, Nature Communications.

[2]  Victor M Corman,et al.  Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR , 2020, Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin.

[3]  I. Ott Saliva Collection and RNA Extraction for SARS-CoV-2 Detection , 2020 .

[4]  P. Winichakoon,et al.  Negative Nasopharyngeal and Oropharyngeal Swabs Do Not Rule Out COVID-19 , 2020, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[5]  C. Schneider,et al.  A streamlined approach to rapidly detect SARS-CoV-2 infection, avoiding RNA extraction , 2020, medRxiv.

[6]  P. Vollmar,et al.  Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019 , 2020, Nature.

[7]  Yiyan Song,et al.  Stability issues of RT‐PCR testing of SARS‐CoV‐2 for hospitalized patients clinically diagnosed with COVID‐19 , 2020, Journal of medical virology.

[8]  Tara C Smith,et al.  Report from the American Society for Microbiology COVID-19 International Summit, 23 March 2020: Value of Diagnostic Testing for SARS–CoV-2/COVID-19 , 2020, mBio.

[10]  S. Lindstrom,et al.  US CDC Real-Time Reverse Transcription PCR Panel for Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 , 2020, Emerging infectious diseases.

[11]  Eric Song,et al.  Analytical sensitivity and efficiency comparisons of SARS-CoV-2 RT–qPCR primer–probe sets , 2020, Nature Microbiology.

[12]  Angelo Tagliabue,et al.  Saliva is a reliable tool to detect SARS-CoV-2 , 2020, Journal of Infection.

[13]  S. Konno,et al.  Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection in nasopharyngeal swab and saliva , 2020, Journal of Infection.

[14]  Eric Song,et al.  Saliva is more sensitive for SARS-CoV-2 detection in COVID-19 patients than nasopharyngeal swabs , 2020, medRxiv.

[15]  E. Dong,et al.  An interactive web-based dashboard to track COVID-19 in real time , 2020, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[16]  C. Vogels,et al.  SalivaDirect™: RNA extraction-free SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics v5 , 2020 .

[17]  Martin D. Burke,et al.  Saliva-Based Molecular Testing for SARS-CoV-2 that Bypasses RNA Extraction , 2020, bioRxiv.

[18]  K. Schallenberger,et al.  Pre-treatment of the clinical sample with Proteinase K allows detection of SARS-CoV-2 in the absence of RNA extraction , 2020, bioRxiv.

[19]  J. Montaner,et al.  Suboptimal Biological Sampling as a Probable Cause of False-Negative COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Results , 2020, medRxiv.

[20]  Min Kang,et al.  SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Upper Respiratory Specimens of Infected Patients , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  K. St. George,et al.  Evaluation of Specimen Types and Saliva Stabilization Solutions for SARS-CoV-2 Testing , 2020, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[22]  M. C. Muenker,et al.  Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by multiplex RT-qPCR , 2020, bioRxiv.

[23]  Malik Peiris,et al.  Molecular Diagnosis of a Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Causing an Outbreak of Pneumonia , 2020, Clinical chemistry.