Abstract
Objectives The optimal diagnostic specimen to detect SARS-CoV-2 by PCR in the upper respiratory tract is unclear. Mouthwash fluid has been reported as an alternative to nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs. We compared mouthwash fluid with a combined oro-nasopharyngeal swab regarding test performance.
Methods We tested asymptomatic persons with a previous diagnosis of COVID-19 and their household contacts. First, a mouthwash (gargling for at least 5 sec) with sterile water was performed. Then, with a single flocked swab the back of the throat and subsequently the nasopharynx were sampled. Samples were inactivated and analysed on a Roche cobas 6800® system with the Roche SARS-CoV-2 test.
Results Of 76 persons, 39 (51%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by oro-nasopharyngeal swab. Mouthwash detected 13 (17%) of these infections but did not detect any additional infection. Samples that were positive in both tests, had lower cycle threshold (Ct)-values for oro-nasopharyngeal samples, indicating a higher virus concentration, compared to samples only positive in oro-nasopharyngeal swabs.
Conclusions Mouthwash is not as sensitive as combined oro-nasopharyngeal swab in detecting upper respiratory tract infection.
Competing Interest Statement
JF reports personal fees from Biomerieux and the Medical Association of Saxony-Anhalt, outside the submitted work; WM, MD, IT, JB and AJK report no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
There was no specific funding for this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Approval was obtained from the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data available on request.
