Evaluation of the impact of pre-analytical conditions on sample stability for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

Demand for accurate SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics is high. Most samples in the UK are collected in the community and rely on the postal service for delivery to the laboratories. The current recommendation remains that swabs should be collected in Viral Transport Media (VTM) and transported with a cold chain to the laboratory for RNA extraction and RT-qPCR. This is not always possible. We aimed to test the stability of SARS-CoV-2 RNA subjected to different pre-analytical conditions. Swabs were dipped into PBS containing cultured SARS-CoV-2 and placed in either a dry tube or a tube containing either normal saline or VTM. The tubes were then stored at different temperatures (20-50 °C) for variable periods (8 h to 5 days). Samples were tested by RT-qPCR targeting SARS-CoV-2 E gene. VTM outperformed swabs in saline and dry swabs in all conditions. Samples in VTM were stable, independent of a cold chain, for 5 days, with a maximum increase in cycle threshold (Ct) of 1.34 when held at 40 °C. Using normal saline as the transport media resulted in a loss of sensitivity (increased Ct) over time and with increasing temperature (up to 7.8 cycles compared to VTM). SARS-CoV-2 was not detected in 3/9 samples in normal saline when tested after 120 h incubation. Transportation of samples in VTM provides a high level of confidence in the results despite the potential for considerable, uncontrolled variation in temperature and longer transportation periods. False negative results may be seen after 96 h in saline and viral loads will appear lower.

Clinical and laboratory evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow assays for use in a national COVID-19 seroprevalence survey.

BACKGROUND: Accurate antibody tests are essential to monitor the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) can deliver testing at scale. However, reported performance varies, and sensitivity analyses have generally been conducted on serum from hospitalised patients. For use in community testing, evaluation of finger-prick self-tests, in non-hospitalised individuals, is required. METHODS: Sensitivity analysis was conducted on 276 non-hospitalised participants. All had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription PCR and were ≥21 days from symptom onset. In phase I, we evaluated five LFIAs in clinic (with finger prick) and laboratory (with blood and sera) in comparison to (1) PCR-confirmed infection and (2) presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on two 'in-house' ELISAs. Specificity analysis was performed on 500 prepandemic sera. In phase II, six additional LFIAs were assessed with serum. FINDINGS: 95% (95% CI 92.2% to 97.3%) of the infected cohort had detectable antibodies on at least one ELISA. LFIA sensitivity was variable, but significantly inferior to ELISA in 8 out of 11 assessed. Of LFIAs assessed in both clinic and laboratory, finger-prick self-test sensitivity varied from 21% to 92% versus PCR-confirmed cases and from 22% to 96% versus composite ELISA positives. Concordance between finger-prick and serum testing was at best moderate (kappa 0.56) and, at worst, slight (kappa 0.13). All LFIAs had high specificity (97.2%-99.8%). INTERPRETATION: LFIA sensitivity and sample concordance is variable, highlighting the importance of evaluations in setting of intended use. This rigorous approach to LFIA evaluation identified a test with high specificity (98.6% (95%CI 97.1% to 99.4%)), moderate sensitivity (84.4% with finger prick (95% CI 70.5% to 93.5%)) and moderate concordance, suitable for seroprevalence surveys.