Evaluation of water gargle samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection using Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 assay.

The Abbott ID NOW™ COVID-19 assay has been shown as a reliable and sensitive alternative to reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing from nasopharyngeal or nasal samples in symptomatic patients. Water gargle is an acceptable noninvasive alternative specimen for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection by RT-PCR. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of water gargle samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using the ID NOW. Residual gargle samples were randomly selected among positive standard of care (SOC)-nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) samples. For testing on ID NOW, the manufacturer's instructions were followed, except for the specimen addition step: 500 µl of the gargle specimen was added to the blue sample receiver with a pipette and gently mixed. Among the 202 positive samples by SOC-NAAT, 185 were positive by ID NOW (positive percent agreement [PPA]) = 91.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86.9-95.0). For the 17 discordant samples, cycle threshold (Ct ) values were all ≥31.0. The PPA was significantly lower among asymptomatic patients (84.4%; 95% CI: 73.2-92.3) versus symptomatic patients (95.2%; 95% CI: 89.8-98.2). The performance of the ID NOW for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection on gargle samples is excellent when Ct values are <31.0 and for patients that have COVID-19 compatible symptoms.

Natural spring water gargle samples as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection using a laboratory-developed test.

The objective of this study was to validate the use of spring water gargle (SWG) as an alternative to oral and nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection with a laboratory-developed test. Healthcare workers and adults from the general population, presenting to one of two COVID-19 screening clinics in Montréal and Québec City, were prospectively recruited to provide a gargle sample in addition to the standard ONPS. The paired specimens were analyzed using thermal lysis followed by a laboratory-developed nucleic acid amplification test (LD-NAAT) to detect SARS-CoV-2, and comparative performance analysis was performed. An individual was considered infected if a positive result was obtained on either sample. A total of 1297 adult participants were recruited. Invalid results (n = 18) were excluded from the analysis. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 144/1279 (11.3%) participants: 126 from both samples, 15 only from ONPS, and 3 only from SWG. Overall, the sensitivity was 97.9% (95% CI: 93.7-99.3) for ONPS and 89.6% (95% CI: 83.4-93.6; p = 0.005) for SWG. The mean ONPS cycle threshold (Ct ) value was significantly lower for the concordant paired samples as compared to discordant ones (22.9 vs. 32.1; p < 0.001). In conclusion, using an LD-NAAT with thermal lysis, SWG is a less sensitive sampling method than the ONPS. However, the higher acceptability of SWG might enable a higher rate of detection from a population-based perspective. Nonetheless, in patients with a high clinical suspicion of COVID-19, a repeated analysis with ONPS should be considered. The sensitivity of SWG using NAAT preceded by chemical extraction should be evaluated.

The PRONTO study: Clinical performance of ID NOW in individuals with compatible SARS-CoV-2 symptoms in walk-in centres-accelerated turnaround time for contact tracing.

BACKGROUND: This PRONTO study investigated the clinical performance of the Abbott ID NOWTM (IDN) COVID-19 diagnostic assay used at point of care and its impact on turnaround time for divulgation of test results. METHODS: Prospective study conducted from December 2020 to February 2021 in acute symptomatic participants presenting in three walk-in centres in the province of Québec. RESULTS: Valid paired samples were obtained from 2,372 participants. A positive result on either the IDN or the standard-of-care nucleic acid amplification test (SOC-NAAT) was obtained in 423 participants (prevalence of 17.8%). Overall sensitivity of IDN and SOC-NAAT were 96.4% (95% CI: 94.2-98.0%) and 99.1% (95% CI: 97.6-99.8), respectively; negative predictive values were 99.2% (95% CI: 98.7-99.6%) and 99.8% (95% CI: 99.5-100%), respectively. Turnaround time for positive results was significantly faster on IDN. CONCLUSION: In our experience, IDN use in symptomatic individuals in walk-in centres is a reliable sensitive alternative to SOC-NAAT without the need for subsequent confirmation of negative results. Such deployment can accelerate contact tracing, reduce the burden on laboratories and increase access to testing.

Comparison of saliva with oral and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection on various commercial and laboratory-developed assays.

The accurate laboratory detection of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a crucial element in the fight against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing on combined oral and nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) suffers from several limitations, including the need for qualified personnel, the discomfort caused by invasive nasopharyngeal sample collection, and the possibility of swab and transport media shortage. Testing on saliva would represent an advancement. The aim of this study was to compare the concordance between saliva samples and ONPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 on various commercial and laboratory-developed tests (LDT). Individuals were recruited from eight institutions in Quebec, Canada, if they had SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected on a recently collected ONPS, and accepted to provide another ONPS, paired with saliva. Assays available in the different laboratories (Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2, Cobas® SARS-CoV-2, Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct, Allplex™ 2019-nCoV, RIDA®GENE SARS-CoV-2, and an LDT preceded by three different extraction methods) were used to determine the concordance between saliva and ONPS results. Overall, 320 tests were run from a total of 125 saliva and ONPS sample pairs. All assays yielded similar sensitivity when saliva was compared to ONPS, with the exception of one LDT (67% vs. 93%). The mean difference in cycle threshold (∆C t ) was generally (but not significantly) in favor of the ONPS for all nucleic acid amplification tests. The maximum mean ∆​​​​​C t was 2.0, while individual ∆C t varied importantly from -17.5 to 12.4. Saliva seems to be associated with sensitivity similar to ONPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by various assays.