SwabExpress: An End-to-End Protocol for Extraction-Free COVID-19 Testing.

BACKGROUND: The urgent need for massively scaled clinical testing for SARS-CoV-2, along with global shortages of critical reagents and supplies, has necessitated development of streamlined laboratory testing protocols. Conventional nucleic acid testing for SARS-CoV-2 involves collection of a clinical specimen with a nasopharyngeal swab in transport medium, nucleic acid extraction, and quantitative reverse-transcription PCR (RT-qPCR). As testing has scaled across the world, the global supply chain has buckled, rendering testing reagents and materials scarce. To address shortages, we developed SwabExpress, an end-to-end protocol developed to employ mass produced anterior nares swabs and bypass the requirement for transport media and nucleic acid extraction. METHODS: We evaluated anterior nares swabs, transported dry and eluted in low-TE buffer as a direct-to-RT-qPCR alternative to extraction-dependent viral transport media. We validated our protocol of using heat treatment for viral inactivation and added a proteinase K digestion step to reduce amplification interference. We tested this protocol across archived and prospectively collected swab specimens to fine-tune test performance. RESULTS: After optimization, SwabExpress has a low limit of detection at 2-4 molecules/µL, 100% sensitivity, and 99.4% specificity when compared side by side with a traditional RT-qPCR protocol employing extraction. On real-world specimens, SwabExpress outperforms an automated extraction system while simultaneously reducing cost and hands-on time. CONCLUSION: SwabExpress is a simplified workflow that facilitates scaled testing for COVID-19 without sacrificing test performance. It may serve as a template for the simplification of PCR-based clinical laboratory tests, particularly in times of critical shortages during pandemics.

Remote Household Observation for Noninfluenza Respiratory Viral Illness.

BACKGROUND: Noninfluenza respiratory viruses are responsible for a substantial burden of disease in the United States. Household transmission is thought to contribute significantly to subsequent transmission through the broader community. In the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, contactless surveillance methods are of particular importance. METHODS: From November 2019 to April 2020, 303 households in the Seattle area were remotely monitored in a prospective longitudinal study for symptoms of respiratory viral illness. Enrolled participants reported weekly symptoms and submitted respiratory samples by mail in the event of an acute respiratory illness (ARI). Specimens were tested for 14 viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction. Participants completed all study procedures at home without physical contact with research staff. RESULTS: In total, 1171 unique participants in 303 households were monitored for ARI. Of participating households, 128 (42%) included a child aged <5 years and 202 (67%) included a child aged 5-12 years. Of the 678 swabs collected during the surveillance period, 237 (35%) tested positive for 1 or more noninfluenza respiratory viruses. Rhinovirus, common human coronaviruses, and respiratory syncytial virus were the most common. Four cases of SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 3 households. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the circulation of respiratory viruses within households during the winter months during the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Contactless methods of recruitment, enrollment, and sample collection were utilized throughout this study and demonstrate the feasibility of home-based, remote monitoring for respiratory infections.

SARS-CoV-2 Epidemiology on a Public University Campus in Washington State.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate a testing program to facilitate control of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission at a large university and measure spread in the university community using viral genome sequencing. METHODS: Our prospective longitudinal study used remote contactless enrollment, daily mobile symptom and exposure tracking, and self-swab sample collection. Individuals were tested if the participant was exposed to a known SARS-CoV-2-infected person, developed new symptoms, or reported high-risk behavior (such as attending an indoor gathering without masking or social distancing), if a member of a group experiencing an outbreak, or at enrollment. Study participants included students, staff, and faculty at an urban public university during the Autumn quarter of 2020. RESULTS: We enrolled 16 476 individuals, performed 29 783 SARS-CoV-2 tests, and detected 236 infections. Seventy-five percent of positive cases reported at least 1 of the following: symptoms (60.8%), exposure (34.7%), or high-risk behaviors (21.5%). Greek community affiliation was the strongest risk factor for testing positive, and molecular epidemiology results suggest that specific large gatherings were responsible for several outbreaks. CONCLUSIONS: A testing program focused on individuals with symptoms and unvaccinated persons who participate in large campus gatherings may be effective as part of a comprehensive university-wide mitigation strategy to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Comparable specimen collection from both ends of at-home mid-turbinate swabs.

Unsupervised upper respiratory specimen collection is a key factor in the ability to massively scale SARS-CoV-2 testing. But there is concern that unsupervised specimen collection may produce inferior samples. Across two studies that included unsupervised at-home mid-turbinate specimen collection, ∼1% of participants used the wrong end of the swab. We found that molecular detection of respiratory pathogens and a human biomarker were comparable between specimens collected from the handle of the swab and those collected correctly. Older participants were more likely to use the swab backwards. Our results suggest that errors made during home-collection of nasal specimens do not preclude molecular detection of pathogens and specialized swabs may be an unnecessary luxury during a pandemic.