ABSTRACT
More than 100,000 people worldwide are known to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 beginning in December 2019. The virus has now spread to over 93 countries including the United States, with the largest cluster of US cases to date in the Seattle metropolitan area in Washington. Given the rapid increase in the number of local cases, the availability of accurate, high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 testing is vital to efforts to manage the current public health crisis. In the course of optimizing SARS-CoV-2 testing performed by the University of Washington Clinical Virology Lab (UW Virology Lab), we tested assays using seven different primer/probe sets and one assay kit. We found that the most sensitive assays were those the used the E-gene primer/probe set described by Corman et al. (Eurosurveillance 25(3), 2020, https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045) and the N2 set described by the CDC (Division of Viral Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/rt-pcr-panel-primer-probes.pdf). All assays tested were found to be highly specific for SARS-CoV-2, with no cross-reactivity with other respiratory viruses observed in our analyses regardless of the primer/probe set or kit used. These results will provide invaluable information to other clinical laboratories who are actively developing SARS-CoV-2 testing protocols at a time when increased testing capacity is urgently needed worldwide.
ABSTRACT
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unprecedented need for rapid diagnostic testing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) recommend a standard assay that includes an RNA extraction step from a nasopharyngeal (NP) swab followed by reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) to detect the purified SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The current global shortage of RNA extraction kits has caused a severe bottleneck to COVID-19 testing. We hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 RNA could be detected from NP samples via a direct RT-qPCR assay that omits the RNA extraction step altogether, and tested this hypothesis on a series of blinded clinical samples. The direct RT-qPCR approach correctly identified 92% of NP samples (n = 155) demonstrated to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by traditional clinical diagnostic RT-qPCR that included an RNA extraction. Thus, direct RT-qPCR could be a front-line approach to identify the substantial majority of COVID-19 patients, reserving a repeat test with RNA extraction for those individuals with high suspicion of infection but an initial negative result. This strategy would drastically ease supply chokepoints of COVID-19 testing and should be applicable throughout the world.
