PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Giselle Ibette Lopez-Lopes AU - Cintia Ahagon AU - Margarete Aparecida Benega AU - Daniela Bernardes Borges da Silva AU - Valéria Oliveira Silva AU - Katia Corrêa de Oliveira Santos AU - Lincoln Spinazola do Prado AU - Fabiana Pereira dos Santos AU - Audrey Cilli AU - Claudia Saraceni AU - Núria Borges da Cruz AU - Ana Maria Sardinha Afonso AU - Maria do Carmo Timenetsky AU - Luís Fernando de Macedo Brígido AU - the IAL-COVID working group TI - Throat wash as a source of SARS-CoV-2 RNA to monitor community spread of COVID-19 AID - 10.1101/2020.07.29.20163998 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.07.29.20163998 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/01/2020.07.29.20163998.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/01/2020.07.29.20163998.full AB - Background SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection with real time PCR is currently the central diagnostic tool to determine ongoing active infection. Nasopharyngeal and oral swabs are the main collection tool of biological material used as the source of viral RNA outside a hospital setting. However, limitation in swabs availability, trained health professional with proper PPE and potential risk of aerosols may hinder COVID diagnosis. Self-collection with swabs, saliva and throat wash to obtain oropharyngeal wash has been suggested as having comparable performance of regular swab. We performed throat wash (TW) based surveillance with laboratory heath workers and other employees (LHW) at a laboratory research institute.Methods Consecutive volunteer testing of LWH and external household and close contacts were included. TW self-collection was performed in 5 mL of sterile saline that was returned to original vial after approximate 5 secs of gargle. RNA extraction and rtPCR were performed as part of routine COVID protocols using Allplex (Seegene, Korea).Results Four hundred and twenty two volunteers, 387 (93%) LHW and 43 (7%) contacts participated in the survey. One or more positive COVID rtPCR was documented in 63 (14.9% CI95 12%-19%) individuals. No correlation was observed between with direct activities with COVID samples to positivity, with infection observed in comparable rates among different laboratory areas, administrative or supportive activities. Among 63 with detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA, 59 with clinical information, 58% reported symptoms at a median of 4 days prior to collection, most with mild disease. Over a third (38%) of asymptomatic cases developed symptoms 1-3 days after collection. Although overall CT values of TW were higher than that of contemporary swab tests from hospitalized cases, TW from symptomatic cases had comparable CTs.Conclusions The study suggests that TW may be a valid alternative to the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The proportion of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic cases is elevated and reinforces the need of universal precautions and frequent surveys to limit the spread of the disease.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNot registered as the study is not a clinical trial or is any other prospective interventional studiesFunding Statementno external funding was receivedAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval - CEP IAL CAAE : 31924420.8.0000.0059 Institucional Scientific committe approval CTC 18M/2020All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll anonymized data is available upon request