Reply to Fabbris et al. A Viable Alternative. Comment on “Kohmer et al. Self-Collected Samples to Detect SARS-CoV-2: Direct Comparison of Saliva, Tongue Swab, Nasal Swab, Chewed Cotton Pads and Gargle Lavage. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5751”

Hoehl, Sebastian; Kohmer, Niko; Eckermann, Lisa; Gottschalk, Rene; Ciesek, Sandra

doi:10.3390/jcm11164920

Open AccessReply

Reply to Fabbris et al. A Viable Alternative. Comment on “Kohmer et al. Self-Collected Samples to Detect SARS-CoV-2: Direct Comparison of Saliva, Tongue Swab, Nasal Swab, Chewed Cotton Pads and Gargle Lavage. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5751”

¹

Institute for Medical Virology, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, 60596 Frankfurt, Germany

²

Health Protection Authority, City of Frankfurt, 60313 Frankfurt, Germany

³

German Centre for Infection Research, External Partner Site, 60323 Frankfurt, Germany

⁴

Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology (IME), Branch Translational Medicine and Pharmacology, 60596 Frankfurt, Germany

^*

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(16), 4920; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11164920

Submission received: 6 July 2022 / Revised: 15 August 2022 / Accepted: 18 August 2022 / Published: 22 August 2022

(This article belongs to the Topic Infectious Diseases)

Download Versions Notes

We thank Fabbris et al. for their remarks [1] on our publication “Self-Collected Samples to Detect SARS-CoV-2: Direct Comparison of Saliva, Tongue Swab, Nasal Swab, Chewed Cotton Pads and Gargle Lavage” [2].

We agree that nasal wash or nasopharyngeal aspirate, which has previously been demonstrated to be useful when testing for different viruses, Ref. [3] may also be an interesting candidate to test for SARS-CoV-2 in a self-collected environment.

In our study, we limited the number of different collection techniques to avoid overwhelming the study participants with a multitude of samples collected without supervision by a medical professional, and due to potential interference between different specimens.

Our study was designed to assess the diagnostic sensitivity of self-collected specimens. Therefore, we recruited patients who were known to be infected with SARS-CoV-2. This prohibited us from determining the specificity of the materials examined in our study.

Funding

Data from the original work of this reply was based on research funded in part by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research through project NaFoUniMedCovid19 [B-FAST]—COVIDready (grant 02WRS1621C).

Conflicts of Interest

S.C. and S.H.: Research support from Roche diagnostics; S.C.: Speaker’s fee from Roche diagnostics. All other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

References

Fabbris, C.; Camerotto, R.; Battistuzzi, V.; Spinato, G. A Viable Alternative. Comment on Kohmer et al. Self-Collected Samples to Detect SARS-CoV-2: Direct Comparison of Saliva, Tongue Swab, Nasal Swab, Chewed Cotton Pads and Gargle Lavage. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5751. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 4501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kohmer, N.; Eckermann, L.; Böddinghaus, B.; Götsch, U.; Berger, A.; Herrmann, E.; Kortenbusch, M.; Tinnemann, P.; Gottschalk, R.; Hoehl, S.; et al. Self-Collected Samples to Detect SARS-CoV-2: Direct Comparison of Saliva, Tongue Swab, Nasal Swab, Chewed Cotton Pads and Gargle Lavage. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Flynn, M.F.; Kelly, M.; Dooley, J.S.G. Nasopharyngeal Swabs vs. Nasal Aspirates for Respiratory Virus Detection: A Systematic Review. Pathogens 2021, 10, 1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hoehl, S.; Kohmer, N.; Eckermann, L.; Gottschalk, R.; Ciesek, S. Reply to Fabbris et al. A Viable Alternative. Comment on “Kohmer et al. Self-Collected Samples to Detect SARS-CoV-2: Direct Comparison of Saliva, Tongue Swab, Nasal Swab, Chewed Cotton Pads and Gargle Lavage. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5751”. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 4920. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11164920

AMA Style

Hoehl S, Kohmer N, Eckermann L, Gottschalk R, Ciesek S. Reply to Fabbris et al. A Viable Alternative. Comment on “Kohmer et al. Self-Collected Samples to Detect SARS-CoV-2: Direct Comparison of Saliva, Tongue Swab, Nasal Swab, Chewed Cotton Pads and Gargle Lavage. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5751”. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(16):4920. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11164920

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hoehl, Sebastian, Niko Kohmer, Lisa Eckermann, Rene Gottschalk, and Sandra Ciesek. 2022. "Reply to Fabbris et al. A Viable Alternative. Comment on “Kohmer et al. Self-Collected Samples to Detect SARS-CoV-2: Direct Comparison of Saliva, Tongue Swab, Nasal Swab, Chewed Cotton Pads and Gargle Lavage. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5751”" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 16: 4920. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11164920

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Menu

Reply to Fabbris et al. A Viable Alternative. Comment on “Kohmer et al. Self-Collected Samples to Detect SARS-CoV-2: Direct Comparison of Saliva, Tongue Swab, Nasal Swab, Chewed Cotton Pads and Gargle Lavage. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5751”

Funding

Conflicts of Interest

References

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI