Practical strategies for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing in resource-constrained settings.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Muller MS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8230941 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Standard nasopharyngeal swab testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection by PCR is not always feasible due to limitations in trained personnel, personal protective equipment, swabs, PCR reagents, and access to cold chain and biosafety hoods. We piloted the collection of nasal mid-turbinate swabs amenable to self-testing, including both standard polyester flocked swabs as well as 3D printed plastic lattice swabs, placed into either viral transport media or an RNA stabilization agent. Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 viral detection by RT-qPCR was compared to that obtained by nasopharyngeal sampling as the reference standard. Pooling specimens in the lab versus pooling swabs at the point of collection was also evaluated. Among 275 participants, flocked nasal swabs identified 104/121 individuals who were PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2 by nasopharyngeal sampling (sensitivity 87%, 95% CI 79-92%), mostly missing those with low viral load (<10^3 viral copies/uL). 3D-printed nasal swabs showed similar sensitivity. When nasal swabs were placed directly into an RNA stabilizer, the mean 1.4 log decrease in viral copies/uL compared to nasopharyngeal samples was reduced to <1 log, even when samples were left at room temperature for up to 7 days. Pooling sample specimens or swabs both successfully detected samples >102 viral copies/uL. Nasal swabs are likely adequate for clinical diagnosis of acute infections to help expand testing capacity in resource-constrained settings. When collected into an RNA preservative that also inactivates infectious virus, nasal swabs yielded quantitative viral loads approximating those obtained by nasopharyngeal sampling.
| S-EPMC7924294 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay is the gold standard recommended to test for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, it generally requires expensive equipment such as RNA isolation instruments and real-time PCR thermal cyclers. As a pandemic, COVID-19 has spread indiscriminately, and many low resource settings and developing countries do not have the means for fast and accurate COVID-19 detection to control the outbreak. Additionally, long assay times, in part caused by slow sample preparation steps, have created a large backlog when testing patient samples suspected of COVID-19. With many PCR-based molecular assays including an extraction step, this can take a significant amount of time and labor, especially if the extraction is performed manually. Using COVID-19 clinical specimens, we have collected evidence that the RT-qPCR assay can feasibly be performed directly on patient sample material in virus transport medium (VTM) without an RNA extraction step, while still producing sensitive test results. If RNA extraction steps can be omitted without significantly affecting clinical sensitivity, the turn-around time of COVID-19 tests, and the backlog we currently experience can be reduced drastically. Furthermore, our data suggest that rapid RT-PCR can be implemented for sensitive and specific molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 in locations where sophisticated laboratory instruments are not available. Our USD 300 set up achieved rapid RT-PCR using thin-walled PCR tubes and a water bath setup using sous vide immersion heaters, a Raspberry Pi computer, and a single servo motor that can process up to 96 samples at a time. Using COVID-19 positive clinical specimens, we demonstrated that RT-PCR assays can be performed in as little as 12 min using untreated samples, heat-inactivated samples, or extracted RNA templates with our low-cost water bath setup. These findings can help rapid COVID-19 testing to become more accessible and attainable across the globe.
| S-EPMC7598596 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Surveillance testing for infectious disease is an important tool to combat disease transmission at the population level. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, RT-PCR tests have been considered the gold standard due to their high sensitivity and specificity. However, RT-PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been shown to return positive results when performed to individuals who are past the infectious stage of the disease. Meanwhile, antigen-based tests are often treated as a less accurate substitute for RT-PCR, however, new evidence suggests they may better reflect infectiousness. Consequently, the two test types may each be most optimally deployed in different settings. Here, we present an epidemiological model with surveillance testing and coordinated isolation in two congregate living settings (a nursing home and a university dormitory system) that considers test metrics with respect to viral culture, a proxy for infectiousness. Simulations show that antigen-based surveillance testing coupled with isolation greatly reduces disease burden and carries a lower economic cost than RT-PCR-based strategies. Antigen and RT-PCR tests perform different functions toward the goal of reducing infectious disease burden and should be used accordingly.
| S-EPMC8423454 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVirological detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) through RT-PCR has limitations for surveillance. Serological tests can be an important complementary approach. We aimed to assess the practical performance of RT-PCR-based surveillance protocols and determine the extent of undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection in Shenzhen, China.MethodsWe did a cohort study in Shenzhen, China and attempted to recruit by telephone all RT-PCR-negative close contacts (defined as those who lived in the same residence as, or shared a meal, travelled, or socially interacted with, an index case within 2 days before symptom onset) of all RT-PCR-confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 detected since January, 2020, via contact tracing. We measured anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in serum samples from RT-PCR-negative close contacts 2-15 weeks after initial virological testing by RT-PCR, using total antibody, IgG, and IgM ELISAs. In addition, we did a serosurvey of volunteers from neighbourhoods with no reported cases, and from neighbourhoods with reported cases. We assessed rates of infection undetected by RT-PCR, performance of RT-PCR over the course of infection, and characteristics of individuals who were seropositive on total antibody ELISA but RT-PCR negative.FindingsBetween April 12 and May 4, 2020, we enrolled and collected serological samples from 2345 (53·0%) of 4422 RT-PCR-negative close contacts of cases of RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2. 1175 (50·1%) of 2345 were close contacts of cases diagnosed in Shenzhen with contact tracing details, and of these, 880 (74·9%) had serum samples collected more than 2 weeks after exposure to an index case and were included in our analysis. 40 (4·5%) of 880 RT-PCR-negative close contacts were positive on total antibody ELISA. The seropositivity rate with total antibody ELISA among RT-PCR-negative close contacts, adjusted for assay performance, was 4·1% (95% CI 2·9-5·7), which was significantly higher than among individuals residing in neighbourhoods with no reported cases (0·0% [95% CI 0·0-1·1]). RT-PCR-positive individuals were 8·0 times (95% CI 5·3-12·7) more likely to report symptoms than those who were RT-PCR-negative but seropositive, but both groups had a similar distribution of sex, age, contact frequency, and mode of contact. RT-PCR did not detect 48 (36% [95% CI 28-44]) of 134 infected close contacts, and false-negative rates appeared to be associated with stage of infection.InterpretationEven rigorous RT-PCR testing protocols might miss a substantial proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections, perhaps in part due to difficulties in determining the timing of testing in asymptomatic individuals for optimal sensitivity. RT-PCR-based surveillance and control protocols that include rapid contact tracing, universal RT-PCR testing, and mandatory 2-week quarantine were, nevertheless, able to contain community spread in Shenzhen, China.FundingThe Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Special Foundation of Science and Technology Innovation Strategy of Guangdong Province, and Key Project of Shenzhen Science and Technology Innovation Commission.
| S-EPMC7816573 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is an ongoing public health pandemic regardless of the countless efforts made by various actors. Quality diagnostic tests are important for early detection and control. Notably, several commercially available one step RT-PCR based assays have been recommended by the WHO. Yet, their analytic and diagnostic performances have not been well documented in resource-limited settings. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic sensitivities and specificities of three commercially available one step reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays in Ethiopia in clinical setting.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted from April to June, 2021 on 279 respiratory swabs originating from community surveillance, contact cases and suspect cases. RNA was extracted using manual extraction method. Master-mix preparation, amplification and result interpretation was done as per the respective manufacturer. Agreements between RT-PCRs were analyzed using kappa values. Bayesian latent class models (BLCM) were fitted to obtain reliable estimates of diagnostic sensitivities, specificities of the three assays and prevalence in the absence of a true gold standard.ResultsAmong the 279 respiratory samples, 50(18%), 59(21.2%), and 69(24.7%) were tested positive by TIB, Da An, and BGI assays, respectively. Moderate to substantial level of agreement was reported among the three assays with kappa value between 0 .55 and 0.72. Based on the BLCM relatively high specificities (95% CI) of 0.991(0.973-1.000), 0.961(0.930-0.991) and 0.916(0.875-0.952) and considerably lower sensitivities with 0.813(0.658-0.938), 0.836(0.712-0.940) and 0.810(0.687-0.920) for TIB MOLBIOL, Da An and BGI respectively were found.ConclusionsWhile all the three RT-PCR assays displayed comparable sensitivities, the specificities of TIB MOLBIOL and Da An were considerably higher than BGI. These results help adjust the apparent prevalence determined by the three RT-PCRs and thus support public health decisions in resource limited settings and consider alternatives as per their prioritization matrix.
| S-EPMC8775315 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8242732 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PCR-based diagnostics generally require nucleic acid extraction from patient specimens prior to amplification. As highlighted early in the COVID-19 pandemic, extraction steps may be difficult to scale during times of massive demand and limited reagent supply. Forgoing an extraction step, we previously reported that the N1 primer/probe-set of the widespread CDC COVID-19 assay maintains high categorical sensitivity (95%) and specificity (100%) with direct inoculation of viral transport media (VTM) into qRT-PCR reactions. In contrast, the N2 set demonstrated a prominent Ct delay and low sensitivity (33%) without extraction. In the current study, we have improved the performance of this modified CDC assay (in particular the N2 set) by incorporating N1/N2/RNase P multiplexing and dissecting the effects of annealing temperature, VTM interference, and inoculum volume. The latter two factors exerted a more prominent effect on the performance of N2 than N1, although these effects were largely overcome through elevated annealing temperature. This unextracted/multiplex protocol was evaluated with 41 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 43 negative clinical samples, demonstrating a categorical sensitivity of 92.7% and specificity of 100% versus the unmodified CDC methodology. Overall, this work offers a generalizable strategy to maximize testing capabilities for COVID-19 or other emerging pathogens when resources are constrained.
| S-EPMC9272867 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is commonly diagnosed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect viral RNA in patient samples, but RNA extraction constitutes a major bottleneck in current testing. Methodological simplification could increase diagnostic availability and efficiency, benefitting patient care and infection control. Here, we describe methods circumventing RNA extraction in COVID-19 testing by performing RT-PCR directly on heat-inactivated or lysed samples. Our data, including benchmarking using 597 clinical patient samples and a standardised diagnostic system, demonstrate that direct RT-PCR is viable option to extraction-based tests. Using controlled amounts of active SARS-CoV-2, we confirm effectiveness of heat inactivation by plaque assay and evaluate various generic buffers as transport medium for direct RT-PCR. Significant savings in time and cost are achieved through RNA-extraction-free protocols that are directly compatible with established PCR-based testing pipelines. This could aid expansion of COVID-19 testing.
| S-EPMC7511968 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of sample pooling compared to the individual analysis for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by using different commercial platforms for nucleic acid extraction and amplification.MethodsA total of 3519 nasopharyngeal samples received at nine Spanish clinical microbiology laboratories were processed individually and in pools (342 pools of ten samples and 11 pools of nine samples) according to the existing methodology in place at each centre.ResultsWe found that 253 pools (2519 samples) were negative and 99 pools (990 samples) were positive; with 241 positive samples (6.85%), our pooling strategy would have saved 2167 PCR tests. For 29 pools (made out of 290 samples), we found discordant results when compared to their correspondent individual samples, as follows: in 22 of 29 pools (28 samples), minor discordances were found; for seven pools (7 samples), we found major discordances. Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for pooling were 97.10% (95% confidence interval (CI), 94.11-98.82), 100%, 100% and 99.79% (95% CI, 99.56-99.90) respectively; accuracy was 99.80% (95% CI, 99.59-99.92), and the kappa concordant coefficient was 0.984. The dilution of samples in our pooling strategy resulted in a median loss of 2.87 (95% CI, 2.46-3.28) cycle threshold (Ct) for E gene, 3.36 (95% CI, 2.89-3.85) Ct for the RdRP gene and 2.99 (95% CI, 2.56-3.43) Ct for the N gene.ConclusionsWe found a high efficiency of pooling strategies for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA testing across different RNA extraction and amplification platforms, with excellent performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values.
| S-EPMC7481316 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWorldwide demand for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing is still high as testing remains central to follow the disease spread and vaccine efficacy. Group testing has been proposed as a solution to expand testing capabilities but sensitivity concerns may limit its impact on the management of the pandemic. Digital PCR (RT-dPCR) has been shown to be highly sensitive and could help by providing larger testing capabilities without compromising sensitivity.MethodsWe implemented RT-dPCR based COVID-19 group testing on a commercially available system and assay (naica® system from Stilla Technologies) and investigated the sensitivity of the method in real life conditions of a university hospital in Paris, France, in May 2020. We tested the protocol in a direct comparison with reference RT-PCR testing on 448 samples split into groups of 8, 16 and 32 samples for RT-dPCR analysis.ResultsIndividual RT-PCR testing identified 25/448 positive samples. Using 56 groups of 8, RT-dPCR identified 23 groups as positive, corresponding to 26 positive samples by individual PCR (positive percentage agreement 95.2% [95% confidence interval: 76.2-99.9%]) and including 2 samples not detected by individual RT-PCR but confirmed positive by further investigation. 15 of 28 groups of 16 tested positive, corresponding to 25 positive samples by individual PCR (positive percentage agreement 87.5% [95% confidence interval: 61.7-98.4%]). 14 groups of 32 were fully concordant with individual PCR testing but will need to be confirmed on larger datasets.ConclusionsOur proposed approach of group testing by digital PCR has similar diagnostic sensitivity compared to individual RT-PCR testing for group up to 16 samples. This approach reduces the quantity of reagent needed by up to 80% while reducing costs and increasing capabilities of testing up to 10-fold.
| S-EPMC8253657 | biostudies-literature