Distribution of cycle threshold values in RT-qPCR tests during the autumn 2020 peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Czech Republic.

Reverse-transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) is currently the most sensitive method to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We analysed 1927 samples collected in a local public hospital during the autumn 2020 peak of the pandemic in the Czech Republic. The tests were performed using the Seegene Allplex 2019-nCov assay, which simultaneously detects three SARS-CoV-2 genes. In all samples analysed, 44.5 % were negative for all three genes, and 37.6 % were undoubtedly positive, with all three viral genes being amplified. A high degree of correlation between C t values among the genes confirmed the internal consistency of testing. Most of the positive samples were detected between the 15th and 35th cycles. We also registered a small number of samples with only one (13.2 %) or two (4.7 %) amplified genes, which may have originated from either freshly infected or already recovering patients. In addition, we did not detect any potentially false-positive samples from low-prevalence settings. Our results document that PCR testing represents a reliable and robust method for routine diagnostic detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Longitudinal Assessment of Diagnostic Test Performance Over the Course of Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Serial screening is critical for restricting spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by facilitating timely identification of infected individuals to interrupt transmission. Variation in sensitivity of different diagnostic tests at different stages of infection has not been well documented. METHODS: In a longitudinal study of 43 adults newly infected with SARS-CoV-2, all provided daily saliva and nasal swabs for quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), Quidel SARS Sofia antigen fluorescent immunoassay (FIA), and live virus culture. RESULTS: Both RT-qPCR and Quidel SARS Sofia antigen FIA peaked in sensitivity during the period in which live virus was detected in nasal swabs, but sensitivity of RT-qPCR tests rose more rapidly prior to this period. We also found that serial testing multiple times per week increases the sensitivity of antigen tests. CONCLUSIONS: RT-qPCR tests are more effective than antigen tests at identifying infected individuals prior to or early during the infectious period and thus for minimizing forward transmission (given timely results reporting). All tests showed >98% sensitivity for identifying infected individuals if used at least every 3 days. Daily screening using antigen tests can achieve approximately 90% sensitivity for identifying infected individuals while they are viral culture positive.

Comparative effects of viral-transport-medium heat inactivation upon downstream SARS-CoV-2 detection in patient samples.

Introduction. The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in 2020 is testing economic resilience and surge capacity of healthcare providers worldwide. At the time of writing, positive detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus remains the only method for diagnosing COVID-19 infection. Rapid upscaling of national SARS-CoV-2 genome testing presented challenges: (1) Unpredictable supply chains of reagents and kits for virus inactivation, RNA extraction and PCR-detection of viral genomes. (2) Rapid time to result of <24 h is required in order to facilitate timely infection control measures.Hypothesis. Extraction-free sample processing would impact commercially available SARS-CoV-2 genome detection methods.Aim. We evaluated whether alternative commercially available kits provided sensitivity and accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 genome detection comparable to those used by regional National Healthcare Services (NHS).Methodology. We tested several detection methods and tested whether detection was altered by heat inactivation, an approach for rapid one-step viral inactivation and RNA extraction without chemicals or kits.Results. Using purified RNA, we found the CerTest VIASURE kit to be comparable to the Altona RealStar system currently in use, and further showed that both diagnostic kits performed similarly in the BioRad CFX96 and Roche LightCycler 480 II machines. Additionally, both kits were comparable to a third alternative using a combination of Quantabio qScript one-step Quantitative Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (qRT-PCR) mix and Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-accredited N1 and N2 primer/probes when looking specifically at borderline samples. Importantly, when using the kits in an extraction-free protocol, following heat inactivation, we saw differing results, with the combined Quantabio-CDC assay showing superior accuracy and sensitivity. In particular, detection using the CDC N2 probe following the extraction-free protocol was highly correlated to results generated with the same probe following RNA extraction and reported clinically (n=127; R2=0.9259).Conclusion. Our results demonstrate that sample treatment can greatly affect the downstream performance of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic kits, with varying impact depending on the kit. We also showed that one-step heat-inactivation methods could reduce time from swab receipt to outcome of test result. Combined, these findings present alternatives to the protocols in use and can serve to alleviate any arising supply-chain issues at different points in the workflow, whilst accelerating testing, and reducing cost and environmental impact.