An expanded RT-PCR melting temperature coding assay to rapidly identify all known SARS-CoV-2 variants and sub-variants of concern.

The continued emergence of vaccine-resistant SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC) requires specific identification of each VOC as it arises. Here, we report an expanded version of our previously described sloppy molecular beacon (SMB) melting temperature (Tm) signature-based assay for VOCs, now modified to include detection of Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) sub-variants. The SMB-VOC assay targets the signature codons 501, 484 and 452 in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein which we show can specifically detect and differentiate all known VOCs including the Omicron subvariants (BA.1, BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.4/BA.5). The limit of detection (LOD) of the assay was 20, 22 and 36 genomic equivalents (GE) per reaction with the Delta, Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 respectively. Clinical validation of the 3-codon assay in the LC480 instrument showed the assay detected 94% (81/86) of the specimens as WT or VOCs and 6% (5/86) of the tests producing indeterminate results compared to sequencing. Sanger sequencing also failed for four samples. None of the specimens were incorrectly identified as WT or as a different VOC by our assay. Thus, excluding specimens with indeterminant results, the assay was 100% sensitive and 100% specific compared to Sanger sequencing for variant identification. This new assay concept can be easily expanded to add newer variants and can serve as a robust diagnostic tool for selecting appropriate monoclonal antibody therapy and rapid VOC surveillance.

Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva: Implications for late-stage diagnosis and infectious duration.

Saliva has been a COVID-19 diagnostic specimen of interest due to its simple collection, scalability, and yield. Yet COVID-19 testing and estimates of the infectious period remain largely based on nasopharyngeal and nasal swabs. We sought to evaluate whether saliva testing captured prolonged presence of SARS-CoV-2 and potential infectiousness later in the disease course. We conducted an observational study of symptomatic COVID-19 patients at University Hospital in Newark, NJ. Paired saliva and nasal specimens from 96 patients were analyzed, including longitudinal analysis of paired observations from 28 of these patients who had multiple time-points. Saliva detected significantly more cases of COVID-19 beyond 5 days (86.1% [99/115] saliva vs 48.7% [56/115] nasal, p-value < 0.001), 9 days (79.4% [50/63] saliva vs 36.5% [23/63] nasal, p-value < 0.001) and 14 days (71.4% [20/28] saliva vs 32.1% [9/28] nasal, p-value = 0.010) of symptoms. Additionally, saliva yielded lower cycle thresholds across all time periods, indicative of higher viral loads in saliva. In the longitudinal analysis, a log-rank analysis indicated that the survival curve for saliva was significantly different from the curve for nasal swabs (p<0.001) with a median survival time for saliva of 18 days compared to 13 days for nasal swabs. We additionally performed saliva viral cultures among a similar COVID-19 patient cohort and noted patients with positive saliva viral cultures between 7 to 28 days of symptoms. Findings from this study suggest that SARS-CoV-2 RNA persists longer and in higher abundance in saliva compared to nasal swabs, with potential of prolonged propagating virus. Testing saliva may thus increase yield for detecting potentially infectious virus even beyond the first five days of symptomatic COVID-19.

Sample collection and transport strategies to enhance yield, accessibility, and biosafety of COVID-19 RT-PCR testing.

Introduction. Non-invasive sample collection and viral sterilizing buffers have independently enabled workflows for more widespread COVID-19 testing by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR).Gap statement. The combined use of sterilizing buffers across non-invasive sample types to optimize sensitive, accessible, and biosafe sampling methods has not been directly and systematically compared.Aim. We aimed to evaluate diagnostic yield across different non-invasive samples with standard viral transport media (VTM) versus a sterilizing buffer eNAT- (Copan diagnostics Murrieta, CA) in a point-of-care diagnostic assay system.Methods. We prospectively collected 84 sets of nasal swabs, oral swabs, and saliva, from 52 COVID-19 RT-PCR-confirmed patients, and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs from 37 patients. Nasal swabs, oral swabs, and saliva were placed in either VTM or eNAT, prior to testing with the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert). The sensitivity of each sampling strategy was compared using a composite positive standard.Results. Swab specimens collected in eNAT showed an overall superior sensitivity compared to swabs in VTM (70 % vs 57 %, P=0.0022). Direct saliva 90.5 %, (95 % CI: 82 %, 95 %), followed by NP swabs in VTM and saliva in eNAT, was significantly more sensitive than nasal swabs in VTM (50 %, P<0.001) or eNAT (67.8 %, P=0.0012) and oral swabs in VTM (50 %, P<0.0001) or eNAT (58 %, P<0.0001). Saliva and use of eNAT buffer each increased detection of SARS-CoV-2 with the Xpert; however, no single sample matrix identified all positive cases.Conclusion. Saliva and eNAT sterilizing buffer can enhance safe and sensitive detection of COVID-19 using point-of-care GeneXpert instruments.

Evaluation of sample collection and transport strategies to enhance yield, accessibility, and biosafety of COVID-19 RT-PCR testing.

Sensitive, accessible, and biosafe sampling methods for COVID-19 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays are needed for frequent and widespread testing. We systematically evaluated diagnostic yield across different sample collection and transport workflows, including the incorporation of a viral inactivation buffer. We prospectively collected nasal swabs, oral swabs, and saliva, from 52 COVID-19 RT-PCR-confirmed patients, and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs from 37 patients. Nasal and oral swabs were placed in both viral transport media (VTM) and eNAT™, a sterilizing transport buffer, prior to testing with the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert) test. The sensitivity of each sampling strategy was compared using a composite positive standard. Overall, swab specimens collected in eNAT showed superior sensitivity compared to swabs in VTM (70% vs 57%, P=0.0022). Direct saliva 90.5%, (95% CI: 82%, 95%), followed by NP swabs in VTM and saliva in eNAT, was significantly more sensitive than nasal swabs in VTM (50%, P<0.001) or eNAT (67.8%, P=0.0012) and oral swabs in VTM (50%, P<0.0001) or eNAT (56%, P<0.0001). Saliva and use of eNAT buffer each increased detection of SARS-CoV-2 with the Xpert test; however, no single sample matrix identified all positive cases.