Global disparities in SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance

Genomic sequencing provides critical information to track the evolution and spread of SARS-CoV-2, optimize molecular tests, treatments and vaccines, and guide public health responses. To investigate the spatiotemporal heterogeneity in the global SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance, we estimated the impact of sequencing intensity and turnaround times (TAT) on variant detection in 167 countries. Most countries submit genomes >21 days after sample collection, and 77% of low and middle income countries sequenced <0.5% of their cases. We found that sequencing at least 0.5% of the cases, with a TAT <21 days, could be a benchmark for SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance efforts. Socioeconomic inequalities substantially impact our ability to quickly detect SARS-CoV-2 variants, and undermine the global pandemic preparedness. One-Sentence SummarySocioeconomic inequalities impacted the SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance, and undermined the global pandemic preparedness.

Implementation and evaluation of a novel real-time multiplex assay for SARS-CoV-2: In-field learnings from a clinical microbiology laboratory

The unprecedented scale of testing required to effectively control the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has necessitated urgent implementation of rapid testing in clinical microbiology laboratories. To date, there are limited data available on the analytical performance of emerging commercially available assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and integration of these assays into laboratory workflows. Here, we performed a prospective validation study of a commercially available assay, the AusDiagnostics Coronavirus Typing (8-well) assay. Respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing were collected between 1st March and 25th March 2020. All positive samples and a random subset of negative samples were sent to a reference laboratory for confirmation. In total, 2,673 samples were analyzed using the Coronavirus Typing assay. The predominant sample type was a combined nasopharyngeal/throat swab (2,640/2,673; 98.8%). Fifty-four patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 (0.02%) using the Coronavirus Typing assay; 53/54 (98.1%) positive results and 621/621 (100%) negative results were concordant with the reference laboratory. Compared to the reference standard, sensitivity of the Coronavirus Typing assay for SARS-CoV-2 was 100% [95% CI 93.2%-100%], specificity 99.8% [95% CI 99.1%-100%], positive predictive value 98.1% (95% CI 90.2%-99.7%] and negative predictive value 100% [95% CI 99.4%-100%]. In many countries, standard regulatory requirements for the introduction of new assays have been replaced by emergency authorizations and it is critical that laboratories share their post-market validation experiences, as the consequences of widespread introduction of a sub-optimal assay for SARS-CoV-2 are profound. Here, we share our in-field experience, and encourage other laboratories to follow suit.