Maximilian Gertler1, Eva Krause2, Welmoed van Loon3, Niklas Krug3, Franka Kausch3, Chiara Rohardt3, Heike Rössig4, Janine Michel2, Andreas Nitsche2, Marcus A Mall5, Olga Nikolai3, Franziska Hommes3, Susen Burock6, Andreas K Lindner3, Frank P Mockenhaupt3, Ulrich Pison7, Joachim Seybold4. 1. Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Tropical Medicine and International Health, Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: Maximilian.gertler@charite.de. 2. Robert Koch Institute - Centre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Division Highly Pathogenic Viruses ZBS1, Berlin, Germany. 3. Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Tropical Medicine and International Health, Berlin, Germany. 4. Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin; Medical Directorate, Berlin, Germany. 5. Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin; Department of Pediatric Respiratory Medicine, Immunology and Critical Care Medicine, Berlin, Germany. 6. Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Charité Comprehensive Cancer Center, Berlin, Germany. 7. Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin; Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Containing COVID-19 requires broad-scale testing. However, sample-collection requires qualified personnel, protective equipement and may cause transmission. We assessed the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2-rtPCR applying three self-sampling techniques as compared to professional-collected oro-nasopharyngeal samples (cOP/NP). METHODS: From 62 COVID-19 outpatients, we obtained: (i) multi-swab, MS; (ii) saliva sponge combined with nasal vestibula, SN; (iii) gargled water, GW; (iv) professionally-collected cOP/NP (standard). We compared ct-values for E-gene and ORF1ab and analysed variables reducing sensitivity of self-collecting procedures. RESULTS: The median ct-values for E-gene and ORF1ab obtained in cOP/NP samples were 20.7 and 20.2, in MS samples 22.6 and 21.8, in SN samples 23.3 and 22.3, and in GW samples 30.3 and 29.8, respectively. MS and SN samples showed sensitivities of 95.2% (95%CI, 86.5-99.0) and GW samples of 88.7% (78.1-95.3). Sensitivity was inversely correlated with ct-values, and became <90% for samples obtained more than 8 days after symptom onset. For MS and SN samples, false negativity was associated with language problems, sampling errors, and symptom duration. CONCLUSION: Conclusions from this study are limited to the sensitivity of self-sampling in mildly to moderately symptomatic patients. Still, self-collected oral/nasal/saliva samples can facilitate up-scaling of testing in early symptomatic COVID-19 patients if operational errors are minimized.
INTRODUCTION: Containing COVID-19 requires broad-scale testing. However, sample-collection requires qualified personnel, protective equipement and may cause transmission. We assessed the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2-rtPCR applying three self-sampling techniques as compared to professional-collected oro-nasopharyngeal samples (cOP/NP). METHODS: From 62 COVID-19 outpatients, we obtained: (i) multi-swab, MS; (ii) saliva sponge combined with nasal vestibula, SN; (iii) gargled water, GW; (iv) professionally-collected cOP/NP (standard). We compared ct-values for E-gene and ORF1ab and analysed variables reducing sensitivity of self-collecting procedures. RESULTS: The median ct-values for E-gene and ORF1ab obtained in cOP/NP samples were 20.7 and 20.2, in MS samples 22.6 and 21.8, in SN samples 23.3 and 22.3, and in GW samples 30.3 and 29.8, respectively. MS and SN samples showed sensitivities of 95.2% (95%CI, 86.5-99.0) and GW samples of 88.7% (78.1-95.3). Sensitivity was inversely correlated with ct-values, and became <90% for samples obtained more than 8 days after symptom onset. For MS and SN samples, false negativity was associated with language problems, sampling errors, and symptom duration. CONCLUSION: Conclusions from this study are limited to the sensitivity of self-sampling in mildly to moderately symptomatic patients. Still, self-collected oral/nasal/saliva samples can facilitate up-scaling of testing in early symptomatic COVID-19patients if operational errors are minimized.
Authors: Armando Hernandez-Garcia; Melissa D Morales-Moreno; Erick G Valdés-Galindo; Eric P Jimenez-Nieto; Andrea Quezada Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-06-10
Authors: Sergei A Kiryanov; Tatiana A Levina; Vladislava V Kadochnikova; Maria V Konopleva; Anatoly P Suslov; Dmitry Yu Trofimov Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-04-27
Authors: Ida Johanne B Møller; Amalie R Utke; Ulla K Rysgaard; Lars J Østergaard; Sanne Jespersen Journal: Int J Infect Dis Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 12.074