RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Self-collected oral, nasal and saliva samples yield sensitivity comparable to professional-collected oro-nasopharyngeal swabs in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.04.13.21255345
DO 10.1101/2021.04.13.21255345
A1 Gertler, Maximilian
A1 Krause, Eva
A1 van Loon, Welmoed
A1 Krug, Niklas
A1 Kausch, Franka
A1 Rohardt, Chiara
A1 Rössig, Heike
A1 Michel, Janine
A1 Nitsche, Andreas
A1 Mall, Marcus A.
A1 Nikolai, Olga
A1 Hommes, Franziska
A1 Burock, Susen
A1 Lindner, Andreas K.
A1 Mockenhaupt, Frank P.
A1 Pison, Ulrich
A1 Seybold, Joachim
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/20/2021.04.13.21255345.abstract
AB Introduction Containment of the COVID-19 pandemic requires broad-scale testing. Laboratory capacities for real-time-PCR were increased, and are complemented by Ag-tests. However, sample-collection still requires qualified personnel and protective equipement, may produce transmission to others during conduct and travel, and is perceived uncomfortable. We tested sensitivity of three simplified self-sampling techniques compared to professional-collected combined oro-nasopharyngeal samples (cOP/NP).Methods From 62 symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients, we obtained simultaneously three self- and one professional-collected sample after initial confirmation in a testing centre: (i) combination swab (tongue, cheek, both nasal vestibula, MS, (ii) saliva sponge combined with both nasal vestibula, SN, and (iii) gargled tap water, GW, (iv) professionally-collected cOP/NP (standard). We compared the results of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-assays detecting E-gene and ORF1ab for the different sample types and performed bivariate statistical analysis to determine the variables reducing sensitivity of the self-collecting procedures.Results SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in all 62 professionally-collected cOP/NP. MS and SN samples showed a sensitivity of 95.2% (95%CI 86.5-99.0) and GW samples of 88.7% (78.1-95.3). Compared to the median ct-values of cOP/NP samples for E-gene (20.7) and ORF1ab (20.2) these were higher for MS (22.6 and 21.8), SN (23.3 and 22.3), and for GW (30.3 and 29.8).For MS and SN samples but not for GW specimens, false negativity in bivariate analysis was associated with non-German mother-tongue, number of sampling errors, and with symptom duration. For symptom duration of ≤8 days, test sensitivity for SN samples was 98.2% (95%CI 90.4-100.0) and for MS 96.4% (95%CI 87.7-99.6) and drops after day 8 below 90%.Discussion The study is limited to sensitivity of self-collection in symptomatic patients. Still, in this group, self-collected oral/nasal/saliva samples are reliable alternatives to professional-collected cOP/NP samples, if symptom duration does not exceed eight days and operational errors are minimized. Self-sampling could contribute to up-scaling of safe and efficient testing.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe study was supported by Charite Universitaetsmedizin and the Senate of BerlinAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Charite-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Germany (EA2/192/20), and written informed consent was obtained prior to study entry.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll raw data and analysis code are available upon a request to the corresponding author.