Overcoming limitations in the availability of swabs systems used for SARS-CoV-2 laboratory diagnostics.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Nairz M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7838421 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), reliable diagnostics are absolutely indispensable. Molecular SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics based on nucleic acids (NA) derived from oro- or nasopharyngeal swabs constitute the current gold standard. Given the importance of test results, it is crucial to assess the quality of the underlying swab samples and NA extraction procedures. We determined NA concentrations in clinical samples used for SARS-CoV-2 testing applying an NA-specific dye. In comparison to cut-offs defined by SARS-CoV-2-positive samples, internal positive controls, and references from a federal laboratory, 90.85% (923 of 1016) of swabs contained NA concentrations enabling SARS-CoV-2 recognition. Swabs collected by local health authorities and the central emergency department either had significantly higher NA concentrations or were less likely to exhibit insufficient quality, arguing in favor of sampling centers with routined personnel. Interestingly, samples taken from females had significantly higher NA concentrations than those from males. Among eight longitudinal patient sample sets with intermitting negative quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction results, two showed reduced NA concentrations in negative specimens. The herein described fluorescence-based NA quantification approach is immediately applicable to evaluate swab qualities, optimize sampling strategies, identify patient-specific differences, and explain some peculiar test results including intermittent negative samples with low NA concentrations.
| S-EPMC7753554 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The ongoing pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is one of the most devastating outbreaks witnessed in the last 100 years. The outbreak started in China and spread rapidly to almost every country, culminating in woefully overwhelmed health-care systems in most countries. The only approved diagnostic test to accompany radiographic evaluation is reverse transcription PCR. However, the applicability of this test in diagnosis and surveillance is challenged by a global shortage of reagents and the lack of well-equipped laboratories with specialized staff in several low- and middle-income countries. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification and CRISPR-based diagnostic assays have developed and expected to play a role however, their accuracy is still inferior to the recommended PCR approach. The need for the development of accurate and rapid diagnostic assays became apparent. Immunodiagnostic tests and other molecular approaches were developed and tested. Other recently developed point-of-care molecular tests are expected to be helpful in pandemic management as no particular skills are required from the operator. Fortunately, a number of serological tests have been granted authorization for use under the emergency situation by the US FDA for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. The majority of recently authorized serological tests detect IgG and IgM in blood of infected individuals by on ELISA, chemiluminescence platforms or lateral flow cassettes.
| S-EPMC7293839 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Since the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak began in Wuhan, China, diagnostic methods in the field of molecular biology have been developing faster than ever under the vigilant eye of world's research community. Unfortunately, the medical community was not prepared for testing such large volumes or ranges of biological materials, whether blood samples for antibody immunological testing, or salivary/swab samples for real-time PCR. For this reason, many medical diagnostic laboratories have made the switch to working in the field of molecular biology, and research undertaken to speed up the flow of samples through laboratory. The aim of this narrative review is to evaluate the current literature on laboratory techniques for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection available on pubmed.gov, Google Scholar, and according to the writers' knowledge and experience of the laboratory medicine. It assesses the available information in the field of molecular biology by comparing real-time PCR, LAMP technique, RNA sequencing, and immunological diagnostics, and examines the newest techniques along with their limitations for use in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.
| S-EPMC8303636 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Information on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spread in Africa is limited by insufficient diagnostic capacity. Here, we assessed the coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related diagnostic workload during the onset of the pandemic in the central laboratory of Benin, Western Africa; characterized 12 SARS-CoV-2 genomes from returning travelers; and validated the Da An RT-PCR-based diagnostic kit that is widely used across Africa. We found a 15-fold increase in the monthly laboratory workload due to COVID-19, dealt with at the cost of routine activities. Genomic surveillance showed near-simultaneous introduction of distinct SARS-CoV-2 lineages termed A.4 and B.1, including the D614G spike protein variant potentially associated with higher transmissibility from travelers from six different European and African countries during March-April 2020. We decoded the target regions within the ORF1ab and N genes of the Da An dual-target kit by MinION-based amplicon sequencing. Despite relatively high similarity between SARS-CoV-2 and endemic human coronaviruses (HCoVs) within the ORF1ab target domain, no cross-detection of high-titered cell culture supernatants of HCoVs was observed, suggesting high analytical specificity. The Da An kit was highly sensitive, detecting 3.2 to 9.0 copies of target-specific in vitro transcripts/reaction. Although discrepant test results were observed in low-titered clinical samples, clinical sensitivity of the Da An kit was at least comparable to that of commercial kits from affluent settings. In sum, virologic diagnostics are achievable in a resource-limited setting, but unprecedented pressure resulting from COVID-19-related diagnostics requires rapid and sustainable support of national and supranational stakeholders addressing limited laboratory capacity.IMPORTANCE Months after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, case numbers from Africa are surprisingly low, potentially because the number of SARS-CoV-2 tests performed in Africa is lower than in other regions. Here, we show an overload of COVID-19-related diagnostics in the central laboratory of Benin, Western Africa, with a stagnating average number of positive samples irrespective of daily sample counts. SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance confirmed a high genomic diversity in Benin introduced by travelers returning from Europe and other African countries, including early circulation of the D614G spike mutation associated with potentially higher transmissibility. We validated a widely used RT-PCR kit donated by the Chinese Jack Ma Foundation and confirmed high analytical specificity and clinical sensitivity equivalent to tests used in affluent settings. Our assessment shows that although achievable in an African setting, the burden from COVID-19-related diagnostics on national reference laboratories is very high.
| S-EPMC7845609 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAustralia's response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic relies on widespread availability of rapid, accurate testing and reporting of results to facilitate contact tracing. The extensive geographical area of Australia presents a logistical challenge, with many of the population located distant from a laboratory capable of robust severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection. A strategy to address this is the deployment of a mobile facility utilizing novel diagnostic platforms. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a fully contained transportable SARS-CoV-2 testing laboratory using a range of rapid point-of-care tests.MethodA 20 ft (6.1 m) shipping container was refurbished (GeneWorks, Adelaide, South Australia) with climate controls, laboratory benches, hand-wash station and a class II biosafety cabinet. Portable marquees situated adjacent to the container served as stations for registration, sample acquisition and personal protective equipment for staff. Specimens were collected and tested on-site utilizing either the Abbott ID NOW or Abbott Panbio rapid tests. SARS-CoV-2 positive results from the rapid platforms or any participants reporting symptoms consistent with COVID-19 were tested on-site by GeneXpert Xpress RT-PCR. All samples were tested in parallel with a standard-of-care RT-PCR test (Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay) performed at the public health reference laboratory. In-laboratory environmental conditions and data management-related factors were also recorded.ResultsOver a 3 week period, 415 participants were recruited for point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 testing. From time of enrolment, the median result turnaround time was 26 min for the Abbott ID NOW, 32 min for the Abbott Panbio and 75 min for the Xpert Xpress. The environmental conditions of the refurbished shipping container were found to be suitable for all platforms tested, although humidity may have produced condensation within the container. Available software enabled turnaround times to be recorded, although technical malfunction resulted in incomplete data capture.ConclusionTransportable container laboratories can enable rapid COVID-19 results at the point of care and may be useful during outbreak settings, particularly in environments that are physically distant from centralized laboratories. They may also be appropriate in resource-limited settings. The results of this pilot study confirm feasibility, although larger trials to validate individual rapid point-of-care testing platforms in this environment are required.
| S-EPMC9260087 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo investigate the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 testing in specimens collected from the anterior nasal vestibules of COVID-19 patients.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis was performed on 30 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center from March 14, 2020 to March 21, 2020. Paired specimens were collected from both the anterior nasal vestibule and the oropharynx from all patients. All specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays.ResultsOf the 30 patients with confirmed COVID-19, 17 patients (56.7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 when oropharyngeal specimens were used, while 20 patients (66.7%) tested positive when nasal swab specimens were used. There was no statistically significant difference in sensitivity between the two methods.ConclusionsRespiratory swabs collected from the nasal vestibule offer a less invasive alternative to oropharyngeal swabs for specimen collection in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and have adequate sensitivity.
| S-EPMC8293915 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The global pandemic of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Related Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) has resulted in unprecedented challenges for healthcare systems. One barrier to widespread testing has been a paucity of traditional respiratory viral swab collection kits relative to the demand. Whether other sample collection kits, such as widely available MRSA nasal swabs can be used to detect SARS-CoV-2 is unknown. METHODS:We compared simultaneous nasal MRSA swabs (COPAN ESwabs ® 480C flocked nasal swab in 1mL of liquid Amies medium) and virals wabs (BD H192(07) flexible mini-tip flocked nasopharyngeal swabs in 3mL Universal Transport Medium) for SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing using Simplexa COVID-19 Direct assay on patients over a 4-day period. When the results were discordant, the viral swab sample was run again on the Cepheid Xpert Xpress ® SARS-CoV-2 assay. RESULTS:Of the 81 included samples, there were 19 positives and 62 negatives in viral media and 18 positives and 63 negative in the MRSA swabs. Amongst all included samples, there was concordance between the COPAN ESwabs ® 480C and the viral swabs in 78 (96.3%). CONCLUSION:We found a high rate of concordance in test results between COPAN ESwabs ® 480C in Amies solution and BD H192(07) nasopharyngeal swabs in in 3 mL of Universal Viral Transport medium viral media. Clinicians and laboratories should feel better informed and assured using COPAN ESwabs ® 480C to help in the diagnosis of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7406068 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The need for timely establishment of diagnostic assays arose when Germany was confronted with the first travel-associated outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Europe. We describe our laboratory experiences during a large contact tracing investigation, comparing previously published real-time RT-PCR assays in different PCR systems and a commercial kit. We found that assay performance using the same primers and probes with different PCR systems varied and the commercial kit performed well.
| S-EPMC7068163 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10998208 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) ribonucleic acid (RNA) in urine and blood specimens, and anal and oropharyngeal swabs from patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and correlated positive results with clinical findings.MethodsPatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were included in this study. Patients' demographic and clinical data were recorded. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction was used to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in urine and blood specimens, and anal and oropharyngeal swabs. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (No. NCT04279782, 19 February, 2020).ResultsSARS-CoV-2 RNA was present in all four specimen types, though not all specimen types were positive simultaneously. The presence of viral RNA was not necessarily predictive of clinical symptoms, for example, the presence of viral RNA in the urine did not necessarily predict urinary tract symptoms.ConclusionsSARS-CoV-2 can infect multiple systems, including the urinary tract. Testing different specimen types may be useful for monitoring disease changes and progression, and for establishing a prognosis.
| S-EPMC7264521 | biostudies-literature