2021-07-18Zeitschriftenartikel
Self-collected oral, nasal and saliva samples yield sensitivity comparable to professionally collected oro-nasopharyngeal swabs in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis among symptomatic outpatients
Gertler, Maximilian
Krause, Eva
van Loon, Welmoed
Krug, Niklas
Kausch, Franka
Rohardt, Chiara
Rössig, Heike
Michel, Janine
Nitsche, Andreas
Mall, Marcus A.
Nikolai, Olga
Hommes, Franziska
Burock, Susen
Lindner, Andreas K.
Mockenhaupt, Frank P.
Pison, Ulrich
Seybold, Joachim
Introduction
Containing COVID-19 requires broad-scale testing. However, sample collection requires qualified personnel and protective equipment and may cause transmission. We assessed the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2-rtPCR applying three self-sampling techniques as compared to professionally 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.
Dateien zu dieser Publikation