Abstract
The gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis is RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal specimen (NPS). Its collection involves a close contact between patients and healthcare workers requiring a significant amount of workforce and putting them at risk of infection. We evaluated self-collection of alternative specimens and compared their sensitivity and Ct values to NPS. We visited acute COVID-19 outpatients to collect concomitant nasopharyngeal and gargle specimens and had patients self-collect a gargle and either sputum or spit specimens on the next morning.
We included 40 patients and collected 40 concomitant nasopharyngeal and gargle specimens, as well as 40 gargle, 22 spit and 16 sputum specimens on the next day, as 2 patients could not produce sputum.
All specimens were as sensitive as NPS. Gargle specimens had a sensitivity of 0.97 (CI 95% 0.92-1,00), whether collected concomitantly to NPS or on the next morning. Next morning spit and sputum specimens showed a sensitivity of 1.00 CI (95% 1.00-1.00) and 0.94 (CI 95% 0.87-1.00), respectively. The gargle specimens had a significantly higher mean cycle threshold (Ct) values, 29.89 (SD 4.63) (p-value <0.001) and 29.25 (SD 3.99) (p-value <0.001) when collected concomitantly and on the next morning compared to NPS (22.07, SD 4.63). Ct value obtained with spit (23.51, SD 4.57, p-value 0.11) and sputum (25.82, SD 9.21, p-value 0.28) specimens were close to NPS.
All alternative specimen collection methods were as sensitive as NPS, but spit collection appeared more promising, with a low Ct value and ease of collection. Our findings warrant further investigation.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
All funding is received from Finnish institute for health and welfare
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:
The Finnish communicable diseases law and the law on the duties of THL allows the implementation of this noninvasive research without seeking further ethical approval (THL-laki 5 e; Tartuntatautilaki 7 and 23). The study has received a statement with following information from Professor Anne Hyvarinen, who the Director of the Department for Health Security: As director of the department for Health security of the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, I certify that: -I am the competent auhority for assessing whether research requires institutional ethical review or if the Finnish communicable diseases law (Tartuntatautilaki 1227/2016)and the law on the duties of the Finnish institute for Health (Laki Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitoksesta 668/2008) and Welfare allows the implementation of the research without seeking further ethical review. -The research presented by Makela et al in -Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in gargle, spit and sputum specimens- did not require further ethical review before implementation as its aim was related to controlling outbreaks and fine-tune mitigation measures (Tartuntatautilaki 1227/2016).
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 is available anonymously
