Feasibility of a refurbished shipping container as a transportable laboratory for rapid SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.

Background: Australia'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. Method: A 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. Results: Over 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. Conclusion: Transportable 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.

Lab-in-a-van: Rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing response with a mobile laboratory.

BACKGROUND: High testing rates and rapid contact tracing have been key interventions to control COVID-19 in Victoria, Australia. A mobile laboratory (LabVan), for rapid SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics, was deployed at sites deemed critical by the Victorian State Department of Health as part of the response. We describe the process of design, implementation, and performance benchmarked against a central reference laboratory. METHODS: A BSL2 compliant laboratory, complete with a class II biological safety cabinet, was built within a Mercedes-Benz Sprinter Panel Van. Swabs were collected by on-site collection teams, registered using mobile internet-enabled tablets and tested using the Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay. Results were reported remotely via HL7 messaging to Public Health Units. Patients with negative results were automatically notified by mobile telephone text messaging (SMS). FINDINGS: A pilot trial of the LabVan identified a median turnaround time (TAT) from collection to reporting of 1:19 h:mm (IQR 0:18, Range 1:03-18:32) compared to 9:40 h:mm (IQR 8:46, Range 6:51-19:30) for standard processing within the central laboratory. During deployment in nine rural and urban COVID-19 outbreaks the median TAT was 2:18 h:mm (IQR 1:18, Range 0:50-16:52) compared to 19:08 h:mm (IQR 5:49, Range 1:36-58:52) for samples submitted to the central laboratory. No quality control issues were identified in the LabVan. INTERPRETATION: The LabVan is an ISO15189 compliant testing facility fully operationalized for mobile point-of-care testing that significantly reduces TAT for result reporting, facilitating rapid public health actions. FUNDING: This work was supported by the Department of Health, Victoria State Government, Australia.

Multi-site assessment of rapid, point-of-care antigen testing for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a low-prevalence setting: A validation and implementation study.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, COVID-19 diagnosis relies on RT-PCR testing which is relatively costly and time-consuming. To date, few studies have assessed the performance and implementation of rapid antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 testing in a setting with a low prevalence of COVID-19 infections, such as Australia. METHODS: This study recruited participants presenting for COVID-19 testing at three Melbourne metropolitan hospitals during a period of low COVID-19 prevalence. The Abbott PanBioTM COVID-19 Ag point-of-care test was performed alongside RT-PCR. In addition, participants with COVID-19 notified to the Victorian Government were invited to provide additional swabs to aid validation. Implementation challenges were also documented. FINDINGS: The specificity of the Abbott PanBioTM COVID-19 Ag test was 99.96% (95% CI 99.73 - 100%). Sensitivity amongst participants with RT-PCR-confirmed infection was dependent upon the duration of symptoms reported, ranging from 77.3% (duration 1 to 33 days) to 100% in those within seven days of symptom onset. A range of implementation challenges were identified which may inform future COVID-19 testing strategies in a low prevalence setting. INTERPRETATION: Given the high specificity, antigen-based tests may be most useful in rapidly triaging public health and hospital resources while expediting confirmatory RT-PCR testing. Considering the limitations in test sensitivity and the potential for rapid transmission in susceptible populations, particularly in hospital settings, careful consideration is required for implementation of antigen testing in a low prevalence setting. FUNDING: This work was funded by the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services. The funder was not involved in data analysis or manuscript preparation.

Sample pooling on the Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay.

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented global demand on laboratory supplies required for testing. Sample pooling has been investigated by laboratories as a strategy to preserve testing capacity. We evaluate the performance of Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay for testing samples in pools of 4 and 6. Clinical samples containing SARS-CoV-2, and confirmed negative clinical samples were used to create sample pools. Clinical samples had 'neat' Xpert® E gene cycle threshold values ranging between 20 and 28 and all were detected qualitatively when contained in pools of 4 or 6 samples. For these samples, pooling had a median change in cycle threshold value of 2.0 in pools of 4, and of 2.9 in pools of 6. With the use of Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay, pooling of 4 or 6 samples may be an effective strategy to increase testing capacity.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva: implications for specimen transport and storage.

Saliva has recently been proposed as a suitable specimen for the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Use of saliva as a diagnostic specimen may present opportunities for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing in remote and low-resource settings. Determining the stability of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva over time is an important step in determining optimal storage and transport times. We undertook an in vitro study to assess whether SARS-CoV-2 could be detected in contrived saliva samples. The contrived saliva samples comprised 10 ml pooled saliva spiked with gamma-irradiated SARS-CoV-2 to achieve a concentration of 2.58×104 copies ml SARS-CoV-2, which was subsequently divided into 2 ml aliquots comprising: (i) neat saliva; and a 1 : 1 dilution with (ii) normal saline; (iii) viral transport media, and (iv) liquid Amies medium. Contrived samples were made in quadruplicate, with two samples of each stored at either: (i) room temperature or (ii) 4 °C. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in all SARS-CoV-2 spiked samples at time point 0, day 1, 3 and 7 at both storage temperatures using the N gene RT-PCR assay and time point 0, day 1 and day 7 using the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, USA) RT-PCR assay. The ability to detect SARS-CoV-2 in saliva over a 1 week period is an important finding that presents further opportunities for saliva testing as a diagnostic specimen for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.

Pandemic printing: a novel 3D-printed swab for detecting SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVES: To design and evaluate 3D-printed nasal swabs for collection of samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing. DESIGN: An iterative design process was employed. Laboratory evaluation included in vitro assessment of mock nasopharyngeal samples spiked with two different concentrations of gamma-irradiated SARS-CoV-2. A prospective clinical study compared SARS-CoV-2 and human cellular material recovery by 3D-printed swabs and standard nasopharyngeal swabs. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Royal Melbourne Hospital, May 2020. Participants in the clinical evaluation were 50 hospital staff members attending a COVID-19 screening clinic and two inpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. INTERVENTION: In the clinical evaluation, a flocked nasopharyngeal swab sample was collected with the Copan ESwab and a mid-nasal sample from the other nostril was collected with the 3D-printed swab. RESULTS: In the laboratory evaluation, qualitative agreement with regard to SARS-CoV-2 detection in mock samples collected with 3D-printed swabs and two standard swabs was complete. In the clinical evaluation, qualitative agreement with regard to RNase P detection (a surrogate measure of adequate collection of human cellular material) in samples collected from 50 hospital staff members with standard and 3D-printed swabs was complete. Qualitative agreement with regard to SARS-CoV-2 detection in three pairs of 3D-printed mid-nasal and standard swab samples from two inpatients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was also complete. CONCLUSIONS: Using 3D-printed swabs to collect nasal samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing is feasible, acceptable to patients and health carers, and convenient.