Analysis by real-time PCR of five transport and conservation mediums of nasopharyngeal swab samples to COVID-19 diagnosis in Santiago of Chile.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many transport kits have been manufactured to preserve and transport nasopharyngeal swab samples (NPSs) from patients. However, there is no information on the performance of the different virus transport media (VTM) used in COVID-19 diagnosis in the population of Santiago de Chile. We compared the RT-qPCR amplification profile of five different viral transport kit mediums, including DNA/RNA Shield™, NAT, VTM-N, Ezmedlab™, and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), for NPSs from Central Metropolitan Health Service, Santiago, Chile. The DNA/RNA Shield™ medium showed a better performance in terms of Cq and RFU values for the internal reference RNase P and viral ORF1ab probes. By contrast, the PBS transport medium registered higher Cq values for the viral and reference gene, compared to the other VTM. DNA/RNA Shield™ shows higher relative fluorescence units (RFUs) and lower Cq values for the reference gene. Collectively, our results suggest that the PBS medium could compromise the sample diagnosis because of its lower RT-qPCR performance. The NAT, Ezmedlab and VTM-N, and DNA/RNA Shield™ media show acceptable RT-qPCR parameters and, consequently, seem suitable for use in COVID-19 diagnosis.

Optimized protocol for a quantitative SARS-CoV-2 duplex RT-qPCR assay with internal human sample sufficiency control.

There is growing evidence that measurement of SARS-CoV-2 viral copy number can inform clinical and public health management of SARS-CoV-2 carriers and COVID-19 patients. Here we show that quantification of SARS-CoV-2 is feasible in a clinical setting, using a duplex RT-qPCR assay which targets both the E gene (Charité assay) and a human RNA transcript, RNase P (CDC assay) as an internal sample sufficiency control. Samples in which RNase P is not amplified indicate that sample degradation has occurred, PCR inhibitors are present, RNA extraction has failed or swabbing technique was insufficient. This important internal control reveals that 2.4 % of nasopharyngeal swabs (15/618 samples) are inadequate for SARS-CoV-2 testing which, if not identified, could result in false negative results. We show that our assay is linear across at least 7 logs and is highly reproducible, enabling the conversion of Cq values to viral copy numbers using a standard curve. Furthermore, the SARS-CoV-2 copy number was independent of the RNase P copy number indicating that the per-swab viral copy number is not dependent on sampling- further allowing comparisons between samples. The ability to quantify SARS-CoV-2 viral copy number will provide an important opportunity for viral burden-guided public health and clinical decision making.