Abstract
Background The 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.
Methods Covid-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.
Results Among 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.
Conclusions MW 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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The authors have declared no sources of funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was obtained from Sheba Medical Center and informed consent was obtained from all patients .The trial was done in accordance with the principles of the declaration of Helsinki.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data will be made available on reasonable request.
