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.

Trends in Risk Factors and Symptoms Associated With SARS-CoV-2 and Rhinovirus Test Positivity in King County, Washington, June 2020 to July 2022.

Importance: Few US studies have reexamined risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 positivity in the context of widespread vaccination and new variants or considered risk factors for cocirculating endemic viruses, such as rhinovirus. Objectives: To evaluate how risk factors and symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 test positivity changed over the course of the pandemic and to compare these with the risk factors associated with rhinovirus test positivity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study used a test-negative design with multivariable logistic regression to assess associations between SARS-CoV-2 and rhinovirus test positivity and self-reported demographic and symptom variables over a 25-month period. The study was conducted among symptomatic individuals of all ages enrolled in a cross-sectional community surveillance study in King County, Washington, from June 2020 to July 2022. Exposures: Self-reported data for 15 demographic and health behavior variables and 16 symptoms. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 or rhinovirus infection. Results: Analyses included data from 23 498 individuals. The median (IQR) age of participants was 34.33 (22.42-45.08) years, 13 878 (59.06%) were female, 4018 (17.10%) identified as Asian, 654 (2.78%) identified as Black, and 2193 (9.33%) identified as Hispanic. Close contact with an individual with SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.89; 95% CI, 3.34-4.57) and loss of smell or taste (aOR, 3.49; 95% CI, 2.77-4.41) were the variables most associated with SARS-CoV-2 test positivity, but both attenuated during the Omicron period. Contact with a vaccinated individual with SARS-CoV-2 (aOR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.56-2.79) was associated with lower odds of testing positive than contact with an unvaccinated individual with SARS-CoV-2 (aOR, 4.04; 95% CI, 2.39-7.23). Sore throat was associated with Omicron infection (aOR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.68-3.20) but not Delta infection. Vaccine effectiveness for participants fully vaccinated with a booster dose was 93% (95% CI, 73%-100%) for Delta, but not significant for Omicron. Variables associated with rhinovirus test positivity included being younger than 12 years (aOR, 3.92; 95% CI, 3.42-4.51) and experiencing a runny or stuffy nose (aOR, 4.58; 95% CI, 4.07-5.21). Black race, residing in south King County, and households with 5 or more people were significantly associated with both SARS-CoV-2 and rhinovirus test positivity. Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study of 23 498 symptomatic individuals, estimated risk factors and symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection changed over time. There was a shift in reported symptoms between the Delta and Omicron variants as well as reductions in the protection provided by vaccines. Racial and sociodemographic disparities persisted in the third year of SARS-CoV-2 circulation and were also present in rhinovirus infection. Trends in testing behavior and availability may influence these results.

Genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants on a university campus.

Novel variants continue to emerge in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. University testing programs may provide timely epidemiologic and genomic surveillance data to inform public health responses. We conducted testing from September 2021 to February 2022 in a university population under vaccination and indoor mask mandates. A total of 3,048 of 24,393 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR; whole genome sequencing identified 209 Delta and 1,730 Omicron genomes of the 1,939 total sequenced. Compared to Delta, Omicron had a shorter median serial interval between genetically identical, symptomatic infections within households (2 versus 6 days, P = 0.021). Omicron also demonstrated a greater peak reproductive number (2.4 versus 1.8), and a 1.07 (95% confidence interval: 0.58, 1.57; P < 0.0001) higher mean cycle threshold value. Despite near universal vaccination and stringent mitigation measures, Omicron rapidly displaced the Delta variant to become the predominant viral strain and led to a surge in cases in a university population.

Associations Between Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Variants and Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Hospitalization Among Confirmed Cases in Washington State: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is dominated by variant viruses; the resulting impact on disease severity remains unclear. Using a retrospective cohort study, we assessed the hospitalization risk following infection with 7 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants. METHODS: Our study includes individuals with positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in the Washington Disease Reporting System with available viral genome data, from 1 December 2020 to 14 January 2022. The analysis was restricted to cases with specimens collected through sentinel surveillance. Using a Cox proportional hazards model with mixed effects, we estimated hazard ratios (HR) for hospitalization risk following infection with a variant, adjusting for age, sex, calendar week, and vaccination. RESULTS: In total, 58 848 cases were sequenced through sentinel surveillance, of which 1705 (2.9%) were hospitalized due to COVID-19. Higher hospitalization risk was found for infections with Gamma (HR 3.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.40-4.26), Beta (HR 2.85, 95% CI 1.56-5.23), Delta (HR 2.28 95% CI 1.56-3.34), or Alpha (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.29-2.07) compared to infections with ancestral lineages; Omicron (HR 0.92, 95% CI .56-1.52) showed no significant difference in risk. Following Alpha, Gamma, or Delta infection, unvaccinated patients show higher hospitalization risk, while vaccinated patients show no significant difference in risk, both compared to unvaccinated, ancestral lineage cases. Hospitalization risk following Omicron infection is lower with vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Infection with Alpha, Gamma, or Delta results in a higher hospitalization risk, with vaccination attenuating that risk. Our findings support hospital preparedness, vaccination, and genomic surveillance.

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.