Dataset Information

Simpler and faster Covid-19 testing: Strategies to streamline SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections is important for treatment, isolation of infected and exposed individuals, and contact tracing. RT-qPCR is the "gold-standard" method to sensitively detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA, but most laboratory-developed RT-qPCR assays involve complex steps. Here, we aimed to simplify RT-qPCR assays by streamlining reaction setup, eliminating RNA extraction, and proposing reduced-cost detection workflows that avoid the need for expensive qPCR instruments.

Method

A low-cost RT-PCR based "kit" was developed for faster turnaround than the CDC developed protocol. We demonstrated three detection workflows: two that can be deployed in laboratories conducting assays of variable complexity, and one that could be simple enough for point-of-care. Analytical sensitivity was assessed using SARS-CoV-2 RNA spiked in simulated nasal matrix. Clinical performance was evaluated using contrived human nasal matrix (n = 41) and clinical nasal specimens collected from individuals with respiratory symptoms (n = 110).

Finding

The analytical sensitivity of the lyophilised RT-PCR was 10 copies/reaction using purified SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and 20 copies/reaction when using direct lysate in simulated nasal matrix. Evaluation of assay performance on contrived human matrix showed 96.7-100% specificity and 100% sensitivity at ≥20 RNA copies. A head-to-head comparison with the standard CDC protocol on clinical specimens showed 83.8-94.6% sensitivity and 96.8-100% specificity. We found 3.6% indeterminate samples (undetected human control), lower than 8.1% with the standard protocol.

Interpretation

This preliminary work should support laboratories or commercial entities to develop and expand access to Covid-19 testing. Software guidance development for this assay is ongoing to enable implementation in other settings. FUND: USA NIH R01AI140845 and Seattle Children's Research Institute.

SUBMITTER: Panpradist N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7878117 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesRisk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 (HA-COVID-19) infection is increased by cohorting infected and non-infected patients together in assessment areas, whist awaiting laboratory PCR results. Molecular point-of-care tests (mPOCT) reduce time to results and improve patient flow but the impact on HA-COVID-19 is unknown.MethodsIn this pre and post implementation study patients were evaluated across two time periods: March 1st to August 13th 2020, prior to the introduction of mPOCT in medical admissions areas, and 14th August 2020 to 1st April 2021, after mPOCT introduction. The primary outcome was proportion of HA-COVID-19 infection among all COVID-19 positive patients. Secondary outcome measures included time to SARS-CoV-2 results, length of time spent in the medical assessment area and comparison of local, regional and national proportions of HA-COVID-19.Results1988 patients were admitted through the acute medicine admission cohorting area and tested for SARS-CoV-2 prior to introducing mPOCT and 4640 afterwards. Median (IQR) time to SARS-CoV-2 result was 6.5 (2.1-17.9) hours prior to introducing mPOCT and 1.0 (0.8-1.3) hours afterwards (p < 0.0001). Median (IQR) duration in the assessment cohort area was 12.0 (4.8-20.6) hours prior to introduction of POCT and 3.2 (2.0-5.6) hours afterwards (p < 0.0001). The proportion of hospital-acquired COVID-19 cases was 108 (16.5%) of 654 prior to introducing mPOCT compared with 168 (9.4%) of 1782 afterwards, (HR 0.55, 95%CI 0.43-0.70; p < 0.0001). In the period following the introduction of mPOCT up to 1st April 2021 the median proportion of HA-COVID-19 was 13.6% (95%CI 8.2-18.9%) locally, compared with 43.8% (95%CI 37.8-49.9%) for all acute NHS trusts regionally and 30.9% (95%CI 28.4-33.5%) for all NHS trusts nationally.ConclusionsRoutine mPOCT for SARS-CoV-2 was associated with reduced time to results, time spent in admission cohort areas, and hospital-acquired COVID-19, compared to laboratory PCR.