Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The role of mouthwash sampling in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis
Asaf Biber; Dana Lev; Michal Mandelboim; Yaniv Lustig; Geva Harmelin; Amit Shaham; Oran Erster; Eli Schwartz.
Affiliation
  • Asaf Biber; The Center for Geographic Medicine and Tropical Diseases, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Israel
  • Dana Lev; The Center for Geographic Medicine and Tropical Diseases, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Israel
  • Michal Mandelboim; Central Virology Laboratory, Ministry of Health, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
  • Yaniv Lustig; Central Virology Laboratory, Ministry of Health, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
  • Geva Harmelin; Department of Emergency Medicine, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Israel.
  • Amit Shaham; Department of Emergency Medicine, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Israel.
  • Oran Erster; Central Virology Laboratory, Ministry of Health, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
  • Eli Schwartz; The Center for Geographic Medicine and Tropical Diseases, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21260760
Journal article
A scientific journal published article is available and is probably based on this preprint. It has been identified through a machine matching algorithm, human confirmation is still pending.
See journal article
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe current practice of COVID-19 diagnosis worldwide is the use of oro-nasopharyngeal (ONP) swabs. Our study aim was to explore mouthwash (MW) as an alternative diagnostic method, in light of the disadvantages of ONP swabs. MethodsCovid-19 outpatients molecular-confirmed by ONP-swab were repeatedly examined with ONP-swab and MW with normal-saline (0.9%). Other types of fluids were compared to normal-saline. The Cq values obtained with each method were compared. ResultsAmong 137 pairs of ONP-swabs and MW samples, 84.6% (116/137) of ONP-swabs were positive by at least one of the genes (N, E, R). However MW detected 70.8% (97/137) of samples as positive, which means 83.6% (97/116) out of positive ONP-swabs, missing mainly Cq value>30. In both methods, the N gene was the most sensitive one. Therefore MW samples targeting N-gene, which was positive in 95/137 (69.3%), is comparable to ONP-swabs targeting E and R genes which gave equal results - 95/137 (69.3%) and 90/137 (65.7%) respectively. Comparing saline MW to distilled-water gave equal results, while commercial mouth-rinsing solutions were less sensitive. ConclusionsMW with normal-saline, especially when tested by N gene, can effectively detect COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, this method was not inferior when compared to R and E genes of ONP-swabs, which are common targets in many laboratories around the world.
License
cc_by_nc_nd
Full text: Available Collection: Preprints Database: medRxiv Type of study: Diagnostic study Language: English Year: 2021 Document type: Preprint
Full text: Available Collection: Preprints Database: medRxiv Type of study: Diagnostic study Language: English Year: 2021 Document type: Preprint
...