PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Michel, Wiebke AU - Färber, Jacqueline AU - Dilas, Milica AU - Tammer, Ina AU - Baar, Jannik AU - Kaasch, Achim J. TI - A combined oro-nasopharyngeal swab is more sensitive than mouthwash in detecting SARS-CoV-2 by a high-throughput PCR assay AID - 10.1101/2020.09.25.20201541 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.09.25.20201541 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/27/2020.09.25.20201541.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/27/2020.09.25.20201541.full AB - 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 StatementJF 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 StatementThere was no specific funding for this study.Author 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: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Magdeburg.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as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).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.YesData available on request.