Abstract Background The ideal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARs-CoV-2) testing method would be accurate and also be patient-performed to reduce exposure to healthcare workers. The aim of this study was to compare patient-performed testing based on a morning saliva sample with the current standard testing method, healthcare worker-collected sampling via a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS). Methods This was a prospective single center study which recruited 217 asymptomatic adult male participants in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) quarantine center who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 8–10 days prior to isolation. Paired NPS and saliva specimens were collected and processed within 5 hours of sample collection. Real time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) targeting Envelope (E) and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) genes was performed and the results were compared. Results Overall, 160 of the 217 (74%) participants tested positive for COVID-19 based on saliva, NPS, or both testing methods. The detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 was higher in saliva compared to NPS testing (93.1%, 149/160 vs 52.5%, 84/160, P < .001). The concordance between the 2 tests was 45.6% (virus was detected in both saliva and NPS in 73/160), whereas 47.5% were discordant (87/160 tested positive for 1 whereas negative for the other). The cycle threshold (Ct) values for E and RdRp genes were significantly lower in saliva specimens compared to NP swab specimens. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that saliva is a better alternative specimen for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Taking into consideration, the simplicity of specimen collection, shortage of PPE and the transmissibility of the virus, saliva could enable self-collection for an accurate SARS-CoV-2 surveillance testing.

Introduction. Co-infection of leptospirosis–malaria is not uncommon due to their overlapping geographical distribution in the tropics. Aim. This study aimed to describe and compare the demographic, clinical and laboratory features of leptospirosis–malaria co infection (LMCI) against leptospirosis mono-infection (LMI) in Peninsular Malaysia. Methodology. Data of patients admitted to various hospitals in Peninsular Malaysia from 2011 to 2014 diagnosed with lepto spirosis in our laboratory were obtained from their admission records. Co-infections with malaria were identified via blood film for malaria parasites (BFMP). Description with inferential statistics analysis and multiple logistic regressions were used to distinguish features between dual and mono-infections. Results. Of 111 leptospirosis-positive patients, 26 (23.4%) tested positive for malaria. Co-infections were predominant among male patients with a mean age of 33years and were prevalent among immigrant populations who had settled in high-density suburban areas. Chills and rigor with splenomegaly were the only significant distinguishing clinical features of LMCI while leukocytosis and raised transaminases were significant laboratory parameters. Only chills and rigor demonstrated a predictive value for LMCI from analysis of multiple logistic regressions. No death was attributed to co-infection in this study, in contrast to LMI (11.8 %, n=10). Conclusion. The significant prevalence of LMCI found in this study with overlapping demographic, clinical and laboratory parameters makes diagnosis of co-infection challenging. It is essential to evaluate co-infection in endemic areas. Strengthened awareness of LMCI, comprehensive diagnostic services and further prospective studies are warranted.