Testing efforts for SARS-CoV-2 have been burdened by the scarcity of testing materials and personal protective equipment for health care workers. The simple and painless process of saliva collection allows for widespread testing, but enthusiasm is hampered by variable performance compared to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. We prospectively collected paired NPS and saliva samples from a total of 300 unique adult and pediatric patients. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 32.2% (97/300) of the individuals using the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit (Thermo Fisher). Performance of saliva and NPS were compared against the total number of positives regardless of specimen type. The overall concordance for saliva and NPS was 91.0% (273/300) and 94.7% (284/300), respectively. The positive percent agreement (PPA) for saliva and NPS was 81.4% (79/97) and 89.7% (87/97), respectively. Saliva detected 10 positive cases that were negative by NPS. In symptomatic and asymptomatic pediatric patients not previously diagnosed with COVID-19, the performances of saliva and NPS were comparable (PPA: 82.4% vs 85.3%). The overall PPA for adults were 83.3% and 90.7% for saliva and NPS, respectively, with saliva detecting 4 cases less than NPS. However, saliva performance in symptomatic adults was identical to NPS (PPA of 93.8%). With lower cost and self-collection capabilities, saliva can be an appropriate alternative sample choice to NPS for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults.

Testing efforts for SARS-CoV-2 have been burdened by the scarcity of testing materials and personal protective equipment for healthcare workers. The simple and painless process of saliva collection allows for widespread testing, but enthusiasm is hampered by variable performance compared to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. We prospectively collected paired NPS and saliva samples from a total of 300 unique adult and pediatric patients. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 32.2% (97/300) of the individuals using the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit (Thermo Fisher). Performance of saliva and NPS were compared against the total number of positives regardless of specimen type. The overall concordance for saliva and NPS was 91.0% (273/300) and 94.7% (284/300), respectively. The positive percent agreement (PPA) for saliva and NPS was 81.4% (79/97) and 89.7% (87/97), respectively. Saliva detected 10 positive cases that were negative by NPS. In symptomatic and asymptomatic pediatric patients not previously diagnosed with COVID-19, the performances of saliva and NPS were comparable (PPA: 82.4% vs 85.3%). The overall PPA for adults were 83.3% and 90.7% for saliva and NPS, respectively, with saliva detecting 4 cases less than NPS. However, saliva performance in symptomatic adults was identical to NPS (PPA of 93.8%). With lower cost and self-collection capabilities, saliva can be an appropriate alternative sample choice to NPS for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults.

While real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs is the current standard for SARS-CoV-2 detection, saliva is an attractive alternative for diagnosis and screening due to ease of collection and minimal supply requirements. 1,2 Studies on the sensitivity of saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing have shown considerable variability. 3 We conducted a prospective, longitudinal study to investigate the testing timeframe that optimizes saliva sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

No abstract

Objectives: Studies of household transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) focused on households with children are limited. We investigated household secondary attack rate (SAR), transmission dynamics, and contributing factors in households with children.Materials and Methods: In this prospective case-ascertained study in Los Angeles County, California, all households members were enrolled if ≥1 member tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Nasopharyngeal PCRs, serology, and symptom data were obtained over multiple visits.Results: A total of 489 individuals in 105 households were enrolled from June to December 2020. The majority (77.3%) reported a household annual income of <$50,000, and most (92.9%) were of Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. Children <18 years old accounted for 46.9% index cases, of whom 45.3% were asymptomatic. Household index cases were predominantly children during low community transmission and adults during the high community transmission period (χ2 = 7.647, p = 0.0036. The mean household SAR was 77.0% (95% CI: 69.4–84.6%). Child and adult index cases both efficiently transmitted SARS-CoV-2 within households [81.9%, (95% CI: 72.1–91.9%) vs. 72.4% (95% CI: 59.8–85.1%), p = 0.23]. Household income and pets were significantly associated with higher SAR in the multivariable analysis of household factors (p = 0.0013 and 0.004, respectively).Conclusions: The SAR in households with children in an urban setting with a large ethnic minority population is much higher than previously described. Children play important roles as index cases. SAR was disproportionately impacted by household income. Vaccination and public health efforts need special focus on children and vulnerable communities to help mitigate SARS-CoV-2 spread.