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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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