Abstract
Summary/AbstractIntroductionContainment 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).MethodsFrom 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.ResultsSARS-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%.DiscussionThe 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.
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Reference26 articles.
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Guidelines for Collecting and Handling of Clinical Specimens for COVID-19 Testing; 2021. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/lab/guidelines-clinical-specimens.html#handling-specimens-safely. [Accessed March 31, 2021.
2. Corman VM , Landt O , Kaiser M , Molenkamp R , Meijer A , Chu DK , et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill 2020;25(3).
3. Fernandez-Gonzalez M , Agullo V , de la Rica A , Infante A , Carvajal M , Garcia JA , et al. Performance of saliva specimens for the molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 in the community setting: does sample collection method matter? Journal of clinical microbiology 2021.
4. Goldfarb DM , Tilley P , Al-Rawahi GN , Srigley JA , Ford G , Pedersen H , et al. Self-collected Saline Gargle Samples as an Alternative to Healthcare Worker Collected Nasopharyngeal Swabs for COVID-19 Diagnosis in Outpatients. Journal of clinical microbiology 2021.
5. Pentaplexed Quantitative Real-Time PCR Assay for the Simultaneous Detection and Quantification of Botulinum Neurotoxin-Producing Clostridia in Food and Clinical Samples
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献