Cargando…
Self-sampling versus health care professional-guided swab collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic reliability and practicability of self-collected oropharyngeal swab samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection as self-sampling could enable broader testing availability and reduce both personal protective equipment and potential exposure. METHODS: Hospital...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8107404/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33970430 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s15010-021-01614-9 |
_version_ | 1783689942550970368 |
---|---|
author | Würstle, Silvia Spinner, Christoph D. Voit, Florian Hoffmann, Dieter Hering, Svenja Weidlich, Simon Schneider, Jochen Zink, Alexander Treiber, Matthias Iakoubov, Roman Schmid, Roland M. Protzer, Ulrike Erber, Johanna |
author_facet | Würstle, Silvia Spinner, Christoph D. Voit, Florian Hoffmann, Dieter Hering, Svenja Weidlich, Simon Schneider, Jochen Zink, Alexander Treiber, Matthias Iakoubov, Roman Schmid, Roland M. Protzer, Ulrike Erber, Johanna |
author_sort | Würstle, Silvia |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic reliability and practicability of self-collected oropharyngeal swab samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection as self-sampling could enable broader testing availability and reduce both personal protective equipment and potential exposure. METHODS: Hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-infected patients were asked to collect two oropharyngeal swabs (SC-OPS1/2), and an additional oropharyngeal swab was collected by a health care professional (HCP-OPS). SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for samples from 58 participants was performed, with a 48-h delay in half of the self-collected samples (SC-OPS2). The sensitivity, probability of concordance, and interrater reliability were calculated. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess predictive factors. Practicability was evaluated through a questionnaire. RESULTS: The test sensitivity for HCP-OPS, SC-OPS1, and SC-OPS2 was 88%, 78%, and 77%, respectively. Combining both SC-OPS results increased the estimated sensitivity to 88%. The concordance probability between HCP-OPS and SC-OPS1 was 77.6% and 82.5% between SC-OPS1 and SC-OPS2, respectively. Of the participants, 69% affirmed performing future self-sampling at home, and 34% preferred self-sampling over HCP-guided testing. Participants with both positive HCP-OPS1 and SC-OPS1 indicating no challenges during self-sampling had more differences in viral load levels between HCP-OPS1 and SC-OPS1 than those who indicated challenges. Increasing disease duration and the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG correlated with negative test results in self-collected samples of previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals. CONCLUSION: Oropharyngeal self-sampling is an applicable testing approach for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. Self-sampling tends to be more effective in early versus late infection and symptom onset, and the collection of two distinct samples is recommended to maintain high test sensitivity. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-021-01614-9. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8107404 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81074042021-05-10 Self-sampling versus health care professional-guided swab collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing Würstle, Silvia Spinner, Christoph D. Voit, Florian Hoffmann, Dieter Hering, Svenja Weidlich, Simon Schneider, Jochen Zink, Alexander Treiber, Matthias Iakoubov, Roman Schmid, Roland M. Protzer, Ulrike Erber, Johanna Infection Original Paper PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic reliability and practicability of self-collected oropharyngeal swab samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection as self-sampling could enable broader testing availability and reduce both personal protective equipment and potential exposure. METHODS: Hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-infected patients were asked to collect two oropharyngeal swabs (SC-OPS1/2), and an additional oropharyngeal swab was collected by a health care professional (HCP-OPS). SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for samples from 58 participants was performed, with a 48-h delay in half of the self-collected samples (SC-OPS2). The sensitivity, probability of concordance, and interrater reliability were calculated. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess predictive factors. Practicability was evaluated through a questionnaire. RESULTS: The test sensitivity for HCP-OPS, SC-OPS1, and SC-OPS2 was 88%, 78%, and 77%, respectively. Combining both SC-OPS results increased the estimated sensitivity to 88%. The concordance probability between HCP-OPS and SC-OPS1 was 77.6% and 82.5% between SC-OPS1 and SC-OPS2, respectively. Of the participants, 69% affirmed performing future self-sampling at home, and 34% preferred self-sampling over HCP-guided testing. Participants with both positive HCP-OPS1 and SC-OPS1 indicating no challenges during self-sampling had more differences in viral load levels between HCP-OPS1 and SC-OPS1 than those who indicated challenges. Increasing disease duration and the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG correlated with negative test results in self-collected samples of previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals. CONCLUSION: Oropharyngeal self-sampling is an applicable testing approach for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. Self-sampling tends to be more effective in early versus late infection and symptom onset, and the collection of two distinct samples is recommended to maintain high test sensitivity. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-021-01614-9. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-05-10 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8107404/ /pubmed/33970430 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s15010-021-01614-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Würstle, Silvia Spinner, Christoph D. Voit, Florian Hoffmann, Dieter Hering, Svenja Weidlich, Simon Schneider, Jochen Zink, Alexander Treiber, Matthias Iakoubov, Roman Schmid, Roland M. Protzer, Ulrike Erber, Johanna Self-sampling versus health care professional-guided swab collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing |
title | Self-sampling versus health care professional-guided swab collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing |
title_full | Self-sampling versus health care professional-guided swab collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing |
title_fullStr | Self-sampling versus health care professional-guided swab collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing |
title_full_unstemmed | Self-sampling versus health care professional-guided swab collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing |
title_short | Self-sampling versus health care professional-guided swab collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing |
title_sort | self-sampling versus health care professional-guided swab collection for sars-cov-2 testing |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8107404/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33970430 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s15010-021-01614-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wurstlesilvia selfsamplingversushealthcareprofessionalguidedswabcollectionforsarscov2testing AT spinnerchristophd selfsamplingversushealthcareprofessionalguidedswabcollectionforsarscov2testing AT voitflorian selfsamplingversushealthcareprofessionalguidedswabcollectionforsarscov2testing AT hoffmanndieter selfsamplingversushealthcareprofessionalguidedswabcollectionforsarscov2testing AT heringsvenja selfsamplingversushealthcareprofessionalguidedswabcollectionforsarscov2testing AT weidlichsimon selfsamplingversushealthcareprofessionalguidedswabcollectionforsarscov2testing AT schneiderjochen selfsamplingversushealthcareprofessionalguidedswabcollectionforsarscov2testing AT zinkalexander selfsamplingversushealthcareprofessionalguidedswabcollectionforsarscov2testing AT treibermatthias selfsamplingversushealthcareprofessionalguidedswabcollectionforsarscov2testing AT iakoubovroman selfsamplingversushealthcareprofessionalguidedswabcollectionforsarscov2testing AT schmidrolandm selfsamplingversushealthcareprofessionalguidedswabcollectionforsarscov2testing AT protzerulrike selfsamplingversushealthcareprofessionalguidedswabcollectionforsarscov2testing AT erberjohanna selfsamplingversushealthcareprofessionalguidedswabcollectionforsarscov2testing |