A combined oropharyngeal/nares swab is a suitable alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2

Impact of Mild COVID-19 History on Oral-Gut Microbiota and Serum Metabolomics in Adult Patients with Crohn's Disease: Potential Beneficial Effects

The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) history on Crohn's disease (CD) is unknown. This investigation aimed to examine the effect of COVID-19 history on the disease course, oral-gut microbiota, and serum metabolomics in patients with CD. In this study, oral-gut microbiota and serum metabolomic profiles in 30 patients with CD and a history of mild COVID-19 (positive group, PG), 30 patients with CD without COVID-19 history (negative group, NG), and 60 healthy controls (HC) were assessed using 16S rDNA sequencing and targeted metabolomics. During follow-up, the CD activity index showed a stronger decrease in the PG than in the NG (p = 0.0496). PG patients demonstrated higher α-diversity and distinct β-diversity clustering in both salivary and fecal microbiota compared to NG and HC individuals. Notably, the gut microbiota composition in the PG patients showed a significantly greater similarity to that of HC than NG individuals. The interaction between oral and intestinal microbiota in the PG was reduced. Moreover, serum metabolome analysis revealed significantly increased anti-inflammatory metabolites, including short-chain fatty acids and N-Acetylserotonin, among PG patients; meanwhile, inflammation-related metabolites such as arachidonic acid were significantly reduced in this group. Our data suggest that the gut microbiota mediates a potential beneficial effect of a mild COVID-19 history in CD patients.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing (December 2023)

Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and for identifying asymptomatic carriage of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The number of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests continues to increase as does the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss nuances of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings, and highlight important unmet research needs related to COVID-19 diagnostic testing. IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel agreed on 12 diagnostic recommendations. Access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention, and the public health response to COVID-19 infection. Information on the clinical performance of available tests continues to grow, but the quality of evidence of the current literature to support this updated molecular diagnostic guideline remains moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is suggested for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions. Evidence in support of rapid testing and testing of upper respiratory specimens other than nasopharyngeal swabs, which offer logistical advantages, is sufficient to warrant conditional recommendations in favor of these approaches.

The swab site of the upper airways influences the diagnostic sensitivity for the omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2

The cycle-threshold-value (CT -value) is a quantitative value of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which represents the gold standard for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV 2). The CT -value can be used to indicate the viral load in swabs of the airways. The collection of a specimen is the only part of the testing process, which is performed manually and carries, therefore, a high potential for increasing measurement variability. The comparison of different PCR results is often difficult since the exact swabbing technique of each test and how do swabs relate in a direct comparison is unknown. For these reasons, the infection course in a patient can be hard infer even after multiple swabs. As the Omicron variant spread from 06/2022 to 08/2022, all common modalities of the upper airway swabs (nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal, combined naso-oropharyngeal, nasal orifice swabs as well as swabs of the buccal mucosa), which were performed on patients with a suspected infection with SARS CoV 2. RT-PCR was used for SARS CoV 2 RNA detection and the sample comparison was based on the CT -values obtained. Viral loads can vary significantly depending on the swab sites of the upper airways. For the maximum clinical sensitivity, a combined naso-oropharyngeal swab should be considered. In case a single point and single sample measurement is the norm, a nasopharyngeal swab can deliver the highest viral load at the presumed beginning of the infection. Furthermore, the findings of this study can be valuable to correctly interpret results of different PCR with different sampling techniques.

Prospective, clinical comparison of self-collected throat-bilateral nares swabs and saline gargle compared to health care provider collected nasopharyngeal swabs among symptomatic outpatients with potential SARS-CoV-2 infection

Background

In British Columbia (BC), self-collected saline gargle (SG) is the only alternative to health care provider (HCP)-collected nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs to detect SARS-CoV-2 in an outpatient setting by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). However, some individuals cannot perform a SG. Our study aimed to assess combined throat-bilateral nares (TN) swabbing as a swab-based alternative.

Methods

Symptomatic individuals greater than 12 years of age seeking a COVID-19 PCR test at one of two COVID-19 collection centres in Metro Vancouver were asked to participate in this study. Participants provided a HCP-collected NP sample and a self-collected SG and TN sample for PCR testing, which were either HCP observed or unobserved.

Results

Three-hundred and eleven individuals underwent all three collections. Compared against HCP-NP, SG was 99% sensitive and 98% specific (kappa 0.97) and TN was 99% sensitive and 99% specific (kappa 0.98). Using the final clinical test interpretation as the reference standard, NP was 98% sensitive and 100% specific (kappa 0.98), and both SG and TN were 99% sensitive and 100% specific (both kappa 0.99). Mean cycle threshold values for each viral target were higher in SG specimens compared to the other sample types; however, this did not significantly impact the clinical performance, because the positivity rates were similar. The clinical performance of all specimen types was comparable within the first 7 days of symptom onset, regardless of the observation method. SG self-collections were rated the most acceptable, followed by TN.

Conclusions

TN provides another less invasive self-collection modality for symptomatic outpatient SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing.

Real-world evaluation of the Lucira Check-It COVID-19 loop-mediated amplification (LAMP) test

IMPORTANCE

In hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic, laboratory testing was important to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmissions, while facilitating patient flow in the emergency department and pre-operative settings, and allowing for the safe return to work of exposed healthcare workers. Delayed test results from laboratory nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) posed a barrier to maximizing efficient patient flow and minimizing staffing shortages. This quality improvement project sought to evaluate the analytical and clinical performance of the Lucira Check-It COVID-19 Test, a point-of-care test that used NAAT technology, in the perioperative setting, emergency department, and community testing sites. We found the Lucira Check-It to have comparable performance to laboratory NAATs. It can be employed with little training for specimen collection, processing, and interpretation, and at a cost justifiable from the resources saved from avoiding sample transport and laboratory testing.

Nasal swab as an alternative specimen for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Background and Aims

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has brought serious threats to public health worldwide. Nasopharyngeal, nasal swabs, and saliva specimens are used to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, limited data are available on the performance of less invasive nasal swab for testing COVID-19. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of nasal swabs with nasopharyngeal swabs using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) considering viral load, onset of symptoms, and disease severity.

Methods

A total of 449 suspected COVIDCOVID-19 individuals were recruited. Both nasopharyngeal and nasal swabs were collected from the same individual. Viral RNA was extracted and tested by real-time RT-PCR. Metadata were collected using structured questionnaire and analyzed by SPSS and MedCalc software.

Results

The overall sensitivity of the nasopharyngeal swab was 96.6%, and the nasal swab was 83.4%. The sensitivity of nasal swabs was more than 97.7% for low and moderate C t values. Moreover, the performance of nasal swab was very high (>87%) for hospitalized patients and at the later stage >7 days of onset of symptoms.

Conclusion

Less invasive nasal swab sampling with adequate sensitivity can be used as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by real-time RT-PCR.

Extreme differences in SARS-CoV-2 viral loads among respiratory specimen types during presumed pre-infectious and infectious periods

SARS-CoV-2 viral-load measurements from a single-specimen type are used to establish diagnostic strategies, interpret clinical-trial results for vaccines and therapeutics, model viral transmission, and understand virus-host interactions. However, measurements from a single-specimen type are implicitly assumed to be representative of other specimen types. We quantified viral-load timecourses from individuals who began daily self-sampling of saliva, anterior-nares (nasal), and oropharyngeal (throat) swabs before or at the incidence of infection with the Omicron variant. Viral loads in different specimen types from the same person at the same timepoint exhibited extreme differences, up to 10⁹ copies/mL. These differences were not due to variation in sample self-collection, which was consistent. For most individuals, longitudinal viral-load timecourses in different specimen types did not correlate. Throat-swab and saliva viral loads began to rise as many as 7 days earlier than nasal-swab viral loads in most individuals, leading to very low clinical sensitivity of nasal swabs during the first days of infection. Individuals frequently exhibited presumably infectious viral loads in one specimen type while viral loads were low or undetectable in other specimen types. Therefore, defining an individual as infectious based on assessment of a single-specimen type underestimates the infectious period, and overestimates the ability of that specimen type to detect infectious individuals. For diagnostic COVID-19 testing, these three single-specimen types have low clinical sensitivity, whereas a combined throat-nasal swab, and assays with high analytical sensitivity, was inferred to have significantly better clinical sensitivity to detect presumed pre-infectious and infectious individuals.

Performance of saline and water gargling for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The performance of gargling for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR testing has not been previously reviewed. This review systematically assessed the performance of saline and water gargling for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing in the settings of diagnosing and monitoring viral shedding.We included original studies comparing the performance of gargling and (oropharyngeal-)nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing. Studies conducted in either suspected individuals or confirmed cases were included and analysed separately. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were examined using random-effects models.Gargles achieved a high overall sensitivity (91%), specificity (97%), PPV (95%) and NPV (91%) for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing. Studies using saline gargle and water gargle have an overall sensitivity of 97% and 86%, respectively. The sensitivity values were largely maintained for saline and water gargling on stratified analysis, for both diagnosis (96% and 92%) and viral shedding monitoring (98% and 78%). A higher sensitivity was also reported by studies using sterile saline (100%), a smaller amount of gargling solution (92% versus 87%) and a longer gargling duration (95% versus 86%).Our results supported the use of gargling as a sampling approach for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing, which achieved a high sensitivity for both diagnosis and viral shedding monitoring purposes. Further investigation on the comparative performance of different gargling mediums is needed to draw a definitive conclusion.

Investigating the Sensitivity of Nasal or Throat Swabs: Combination of Both Swabs Increases the Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Tests

The COVID-19 pandemic has been hallmarked by several waves of variants of concern (VoCs), each with novel challenges. Currently, the highly transmissible Omicron VoC is predominant worldwide, and sore throat is common, among other cold-like symptoms. Anecdotes on social media have suggested that sampling one's throat can increase the sensitivity for Omicron detection by antigen-based rapid testing devices (Ag-RDTs). This work aimed to improve the local testing strategy and determine whether the sensitivity of Ag-RDTs designed for nasal sampling is altered with the use of self-administered throat swabs in self-perceived asymptomatic individuals. This investigation used a common Ag-RDT (i.e., Abbott Panbio COVID-19 Ag rapid test device) to compare three sampling sites: nasal swab, throat swab, and combined nasal/throat. All Ag-RDT results were confirmed with molecular testing from residual test buffer. Compared to reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR), samples from nasal or throat swabs each detected 64.5% of SARS-CoV-2 cases; however, combining the contributions of each swab increased the positive percent agreement (PPA) with RT-PCR to 88.7%. This trend was also evident with the Rapid Response Ag-RDT (BTNX), which uses more flexible swabs than does the Panbio. When nasal swab collection was compared to paired sampling of the nose/throat using a single swab with the Panbio Ag-RDT, the PPAs were 68.4% and 81.6%, respectively. No false-positive results were observed with nasal, throat, or combined nasal/throat sampling. Self-administered throat and nasal/throat swabs both had >90% acceptability. These findings support the use of self-collected combined nasal/throat sampling for Ag-RDT-based SARS-CoV-2 detection in self-perceived asymptomatic individuals. IMPORTANCE This quality project demonstrates that combining the results of nasal and throat swabs or using a combined single swab of the throat and nares resulted in increased detection of SARS-CoV-2 using a rapid antigen test, in an asymptomatic population. Importantly, no false positives were detected, and over 90% of people were willing to perform the combination swab. These types of projects are instrumental in informing local practices to improve testing strategies. These data support the option of using a combined nasal/throat swab in our local setting to enhance the detection of Omicron.

Combined oropharyngeal/nares and nasopharyngeal swab sampling remain effective for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant

The world has experienced several waves of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoCs) throughout the COVID-19 pandemic since the first cases in December 2019. The Omicron VoC has increased transmission, compared to its predecessors, and can present with sore throat and other cold-like symptoms. Given the predominance of throat symptoms, and previous work demonstrating better sensitivity using antigen-based rapid detection tests when a throat swab is included in the standard nasal sampling, this quality improvement project sought to ensure ongoing suitability of both combined oropharyngeal/nares (OPN) and nasopharyngeal (NP) swab sampling used throughout the pandemic. Consenting participants meeting Public Health testing criteria (mostly symptomatic or a close contact of a known case) were enrolled, and paired NP and OPN swabs were subjected to nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Comparing paired specimens from 392 participants sensitivity of NP swabs was 89.1 % (95 % CI, 78.8-94.9), and that of OPN was 98.4 % (95 % CI: 90.9->99.9) (P-value 0.052). This project demonstrated that both NP and combined OPN swabs detected the Omicron variant with similar sensitivity by NAAT, supporting the continued use of either swab collection for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection.

Sensitivity and Specificity of Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Using Different Sampling Methods: A Clinical Unicentral Study

Rapid antigen detection of SARS-CoV-2 has been widely used. However, there is no consensus on the best sampling method. This study aimed to determine the level of agreement between SARS-CoV-2 fluorescent detection and a real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), using different swab methods. Fifty COVID-19 and twenty-six healthy patients were confirmed via rRT-PCR, and each patient was sampled via four swab methods: oropharyngeal (O), nasal (N), spit saliva (S), and combined O/N/S swabs. Each swab was analyzed using an immunofluorescent Quidel system. The combined O/N/S swab provided the highest sensitivity (86%; Kappa = 0.8), followed by nasal (76%; Kappa = 0.68), whereas the saliva revealed the lowest sensitivity (66%; kappa = 0.57). Further, when considering positive detection in any of the O, N, and S samples, excellent agreements with rRT-PCR were achieved (Kappa = 0.91 and 0.97, respectively). Finally, among multiple factors, only patient age revealed a significant negative association with antigenic detection in the saliva. It is concluded that immunofluorescent detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen is a reliable method for rapid diagnosis under circumstances where at least two swabs, one nasal and one oropharyngeal, are analyzed. Alternatively, a single combined O/N/S swab would improve the sensitivity in contrast to each site swabbed alone.

Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Nasal Cavity and Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Detection via Rapid Antigen Test According to Specimen Collection Timing and Viral Load

The rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is an essential aspect in the detection and control of the spread of COVID-19. We evaluated the accuracy of the rapid antigen test (RAT) using samples from the nasal cavity and nasopharynx based on sample collection timing and viral load. We enrolled 175 patients, of which 71 patients and 104 patients had tested positive and negative, respectively, based on real time-PCR. Nasal cavity and nasopharyngeal swab samples were tested using STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag tests (Q Ag, SD Biosensor, Korea). The sensitivity of the Q Ag test was 77.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67.8−87.2%) for the nasal cavity and 81.7% (95% [CI, 72.7−90.7%) for the nasopharyngeal specimens. The RAT results showed a substantial agreement between the nasal cavity and nasopharyngeal specimens (Cohen’s kappa index = 0.78). The sensitivity of the RAT for nasal cavity specimens exceeded 89% for <5 days after symptom onset (DSO) and 86% for Ct of E and RdRp < 25. The Q Ag test performed fairly well, especially in the early DSO when a high viral load was present, and the nasal cavity swab can be considered an alternative site for the rapid diagnosis of COVID-19.

Comparative Evaluation of Rapid Isothermal Amplification and Antigen Assays for Screening Testing of SARS-CoV-2

Human transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and emergent variants of concern continue to occur globally, despite mass vaccination campaigns. Public health strategies to reduce virus spread should therefore rely, in part, on frequent screening with rapid, inexpensive, and sensitive tests. We evaluated two digitally integrated rapid tests and assessed their performance using stored nasal swab specimens collected from individuals with or without COVID-19. An isothermal amplification assay combined with a lateral flow test had a limit of detection of 10 RNA copies per reaction, and a positive percent agreement (PPA)/negative percent agreement (NPA) during the asymptomatic and symptomatic phases of 100%/100% and 95.83/100%, respectively. Comparatively, an antigen-based lateral flow test had a limit of detection of 30,000 copies and a PPA/NPA during the asymptomatic and symptomatic phases of 82.86%/98.68% and 91.67/100%, respectively. Both the isothermal amplification and antigen-based lateral flow tests had optimized detection of SARS-CoV-2 during the peak period of transmission; however, the antigen-based test had reduced sensitivity in clinical samples with qPCR Ct values greater than 29.8. Low-cost, high-throughput screening enabled by isothermal amplification or antigen-based techniques have value for outbreak control.

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in combined nasal-and-throat swabs collected from COVID-19 individuals under the Universal Community Testing Programme in Hong Kong

BACKGROUND

Combined nasal-and-throat swabs (CNTS) is less invasive and easy to execute. CNTS also induces lower risk to healthcare workers upon collection. However, there is a lack of data on viral load assessment for population-wide testing.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed if CNTS is suitable as an alternative specimen type for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

We assessed the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in CNTS collected from COVID-19 individuals through the 2-week period of the Universal Community Testing Programme (UCTP) conducted in Hong Kong. In addition, we compared viral loads of SARS-CoV-2 for the paired CNTS and non-CNTS specimens among these individuals.

RESULTS

This UCTP identified 48 COVID-19 individuals from nearly 2 million specimens collected. The viral loads of SARS-CoV-2 varied widely, cycle threshold values Ct 16.28-36.94, among symptoms and asymptomatic individuals. The viral loads for the paired CNTS and non-CNTS specimens were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that CNTS could be a specimen of choice for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.

Acceptability of OP/Na swabbing for SARS-CoV-2: a prospective observational cohort surveillance study in Western Australian schools

OBJECTIVES

When the COVID-19 pandemic was declared, Governments responded with lockdown and isolation measures to combat viral spread, including the closure of many schools. More than a year later, widespread screening for SARS-CoV-2 is critical to allow schools and other institutions to remain open. Here, we describe the acceptability of a minimally invasive COVID-19 screening protocol trialled by the Western Australian Government to mitigate the risks of and boost public confidence in schools remaining open. To minimise discomfort, and optimise recruitment and tolerability in unaccompanied children, a combined throat and nasal (OP/Na) swab was chosen over the nasopharyngeal swab commonly used, despite slightly reduced test performance.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Trialling of OP/Na swabbing took place as part of a prospective observational cohort surveillance study in 79 schools across Western Australia. Swabs were collected from 5903 asymptomatic students and 1036 asymptomatic staff in 40 schools monthly between June and September 2020.

OUTCOME MEASURES

PCR testing was performed with a two-step diagnostic and independent confirmatory PCR for any diagnostic PCR positives. Concurrent surveys, collected online through the REDCap platform, evaluated participant experiences of in-school swabbing.

RESULTS

13 988 swabs were collected from students and staff. There were zero positive test results for SARS-CoV-2, including no false positives. Participants reported high acceptability: 71% of students reported no or minimal discomfort and most were willing to be reswabbed (4% refusal rate).

CONCLUSIONS

OP/Na swabbing is acceptable and repeatable in schoolchildren as young as 4 years old and may combat noncompliance rates by significantly increasing the acceptability of testing. This kind of minimally-invasive testing will be key to the success of ongoing, voluntary mass screening as society adjusts to a new 'normal' in the face of COVID-19.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry-ACTRN12620000922976.

The PRONTO study: Clinical performance of ID NOW in individuals with compatible SARS-CoV-2 symptoms in walk-in centres-accelerated turnaround time for contact tracing

Background

This PRONTO study investigated the clinical performance of the Abbott ID NOW^TM (IDN) COVID-19 diagnostic assay used at point of care and its impact on turnaround time for divulgation of test results.

Methods

Prospective study conducted from December 2020 to February 2021 in acute symptomatic participants presenting in three walk-in centres in the province of Québec.

Results

Valid paired samples were obtained from 2,372 participants. A positive result on either the IDN or the standard-of-care nucleic acid amplification test (SOC-NAAT) was obtained in 423 participants (prevalence of 17.8%). Overall sensitivity of IDN and SOC-NAAT were 96.4% (95% CI: 94.2-98.0%) and 99.1% (95% CI: 97.6-99.8), respectively; negative predictive values were 99.2% (95% CI: 98.7-99.6%) and 99.8% (95% CI: 99.5-100%), respectively. Turnaround time for positive results was significantly faster on IDN.

Conclusion

In our experience, IDN use in symptomatic individuals in walk-in centres is a reliable sensitive alternative to SOC-NAAT without the need for subsequent confirmation of negative results. Such deployment can accelerate contact tracing, reduce the burden on laboratories and increase access to testing.

Anatomical site, viral RNA abundance, and time of sampling correlate with molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 during infection

Background

Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are the standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. If less invasive alternatives to NP swabs (eg, oropharyngeal [OP] or nasal swabs [NS]) are comparably sensitive, the use of these techniques may be preferable in terms of comfort, convenience, and safety.

Methods

This study compared the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in swab samples collected on the same day among participants with at least one positive PCR test.

Results

Overall, 755 participants had at least one set of paired swabs. Concordance between NP and other swab types was 75% (NS), 72% (OP), 54% (rectal swabs [RS]), and 78% (NS/OP combined). Kappa values were moderate for the NS, OP, and NS/OP comparisons (0.50, 0.45, and 0.54, respectively). Highest sensitivity relative to NP (0.87) was observed with a combination of NS/OP tests (positive if either NS or OP was positive). Sensitivity of the non-NP swab types was highest in the first week postsymptom onset and decreased thereafter. Similarly, virus RNA quantity was highest in the NP swabs as compared with NS, OP, and RS within two weeks postsymptom onset. OP and NS performance decreased as virus RNA quantity decreased. No differences were noted between NS specimens collected at home or in clinic.

Conclusions

NP swabs detected more SARS-CoV-2 cases than non-NP swabs, and the sensitivity of the non-NP swabs decreased with time postsymptom onset. While other swabs may be simpler to collect, NP swabs present the best chance of detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA, which is essential for clinical care as well as genomic surveillance.

The estimated risk of SARS-CoV- 2 infection via cornea transplant in Canada

In late 2019 the respiratory illness, Corona Virus Disease-19 caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus emerged in China and quickly spread to other countries. The primary mode of transmission is person-to-person via respiratory droplets. SARS-CoV-2 has been identified in conjunctiva. Transmission by cornea transplant has not been reported but is theoretically possible. We aimed to estimate the possible risk of transmission in Canada via cornea transplant during the first wave of the pandemic, and the potential risk reduction from testing decedents. We constructed a deterministic model in which the risk of transmission was estimated as the product of three proportions: decedents with SARS-CoV-2 infection, corneas that are NAT positive, and NAT positive corneas presumed to transmit. Risk was estimated according to 3 scenarios: most likely, optimistic and pessimistic. At the peak of the first wave of the pandemic risk was estimated to be 1 in 63,031 cornea transplants in Canada but could be as low as 1 in 175,821 or as high as 1 in 10,129. It would take 16 years at the peak infection of the first wave of the pandemic to observe 1 transmission. Testing would reduce the risk of 1 in 63,031 to 1 in 210,104 assuming 70% test sensitivity. The theoretical risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by cornea transplant is extremely low and decedent testing is unlikely to be beneficial.

Nasopharyngeal Swabs vs. Nasal Aspirates for Respiratory Virus Detection: A Systematic Review

Nasal pathogen detection sensitivities can be as low as 70% despite advances in molecular diagnostics. This may be linked to the choice of sampling method. A diagnostic test accuracy review for sensitivity was undertaken to compare sensitivity of swabbing to the nasopharynx and extracting nasal aspirates, using the PRISMA protocol, Cochrane rapid review methodology, and QUADAS-2 risk of bias tools, with meta-analysis of included studies. Sensitivities were calculated by a consensus standard of positivity by either method as the ‘gold standard.’ Insufficient sampling methodology, cross sectional study designs, and studies pooling samples across anatomical sites were excluded. Of 13 subsequently eligible studies, 8 had ‘high’ risk of bias, and 5 had ‘high’ applicability concerns. There were no statistical differences in overall sensitivities between collection methods for eight different viruses, and this did not differ with use of PCR, immunofluorescence, or culture. In one study alone, Influenza H1N1(2009) favored nasopharyngeal swabs, with aspirates having 93.3% of the sensitivity of swabs (p > 0.001). Similarly equivocal sensitivities were noted in reports detecting bacteria. The chain of sampling, from anatomical site to laboratory results, features different potential foci along which sensitivity may be lost. A fair body of evidence exists that use of a different sampling method will not yield more respiratory pathogens.

Generation of False-Positive SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Results with Testing Conditions outside Manufacturer Recommendations: A Scientific Approach to Pandemic Misinformation

Antigen-based rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs) are useful tools for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection. However, misleading demonstrations of the Abbott Panbio coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Ag-RDT on social media claimed that SARS-CoV-2 antigen could be detected in municipal water and food products. To offer a scientific rebuttal to pandemic misinformation and disinformation, this study explored the impact of using the Panbio SARS-CoV-2 assay with conditions falling outside manufacturer recommendations. Using Panbio, various water and food products, laboratory buffers, and SARS-CoV-2-negative clinical specimens were tested with and without manufacturer buffer. Additional experiments were conducted to assess the role of each Panbio buffer component (tricine, NaCl, pH, and Tween 20) as well as the impact of temperature (4°C, 20°C, and 45°C) and humidity (90%) on assay performance. Direct sample testing (without the kit buffer) resulted in false-positive signals resembling those obtained with SARS-CoV-2 positive controls tested under proper conditions. The likely explanation of these artifacts is nonspecific interactions between the SARS-CoV-2-specific conjugated and capture antibodies, as proteinase K treatment abrogated this phenomenon, and thermal shift assays showed pH-induced conformational changes under conditions promoting artifact formation. Omitting, altering, and reverse engineering the kit buffer all supported the importance of maintaining buffering capacity, ionic strength, and pH for accurate kit function. Interestingly, the Panbio assay could tolerate some extremes of temperature and humidity outside manufacturer claims. Our data support strict adherence to manufacturer instructions to avoid false-positive SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT reactions, otherwise resulting in anxiety, overuse of public health resources, and dissemination of misinformation. IMPORTANCE With the Panbio severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen test being deployed in over 120 countries worldwide, understanding conditions required for its ideal performance is critical. Recently on social media, this kit was shown to generate false positives when manufacturer recommendations were not followed. While erroneous results from improper use of a test may not be surprising to some health care professionals, understanding why false positives occur can help reduce the propagation of misinformation and provide a scientific rebuttal for these aberrant findings. This study demonstrated that the kit buffer's pH, ionic strength, and buffering capacity were critical components to ensure proper kit function and avoid generation of false-positive results. Typically, false positives arise from cross-reacting or interfering substances; however, this study demonstrated a mechanism where false positives were generated under conditions favoring nonspecific interactions between the two antibodies designed for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection. Following the manufacturer instructions is critical for accurate test results.

Nasopharyngeal versus nasal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review

Nasopharyngeal swabbing (NPS) coupled with RT-PCR is the current gold standard for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, numerous studies have recently demonstrated the advantages of alternative nasal specimen collection approaches over NPS specifically for COVID-19 diagnosis. The present review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and summarises the current literature to give a clear overview of nasal specimen collection methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Publications investigating NPS and at least one other form of nasal specimen collection in combination with RT-PCR for viral detection in the context of COVID-19 were assessed. We identified 425 articles and ultimately included 18 studies in this systematic review. The suitable publications evaluated different forms of nasal specimen collection, with anterior nasal swabbing (ANS) and midturbinate swabbing (MTS) being the most frequently examined techniques. The analysed studies report sensitivity and specificity results (67.5-96.2% and 97.9-100.0%, respectively) similar to those achieved via NPS, especially in the early stages of disease or when paired with an oropharyngeal swab. Results from these studies suggest that ANS and MTS are suitable alternatives to NPS for COVID-19 testing. Due to their ease of collection, ANS and MTS collection techniques may facilitate broader testing strategies and allow for economization of medical staff.

Saliva is Comparable to Nasopharyngeal Swabs for Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2

The continued need for molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the potential for self-collected saliva as an alternative to nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs for sample acquisition led us to compare saliva to NP swabs in an outpatient setting without restrictions to avoid food, drink, smoking, or tooth-brushing. A total of 385 pairs of NP and saliva specimens were obtained, the majority from individuals presenting for initial evaluation, and were tested on two high-sensitivity reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) platforms, the Abbott m2000 and Abbott Alinity m (both with limits of detection [LoD] of 100 copies of viral RNA/ml). Concordance between saliva and NP swabs was excellent overall (Cohen's κ = 0.93) for both initial and follow-up testing, for both platforms, and for specimens treated with guanidinium transport medium as preservative as well as for untreated saliva (κ = 0.88 to 0.95). Viral loads were on average 16× higher in NP specimens than saliva specimens, suggesting that only the relatively small fraction of outpatients (∼8% in this study) who present with very low viral loads (<1,600 copies/ml from NP swabs) would be missed by testing saliva instead of NP swabs when using sensitive testing platforms. Special attention was necessary to ensure leak-resistant specimen collection and transport. The advantages of self-collection of saliva, without behavioral restrictions, will likely outweigh a minor potential decrease in clinical sensitivity in individuals less likely to pose an infectious risk to others for many real-world scenarios, especially for initial testing. IMPORTANCE In general, the most accurate COVID-19 testing is hands-on and uncomfortable, requiring trained staff and a "brain-tickling" nasopharyngeal swab. Saliva would be much easier on both fronts, since patients could collect it themselves, and it is after all just spit. However, despite much interest, it remains unclear how well saliva performs in real-world settings when just using it in place of an NP swab without elaborate or cumbersome restrictions about not eating/drinking before testing, etc. Also, almost all studies of COVID-19 testing, whether of NP swabs, saliva, or otherwise, have been restricted to reporting results in the abstruse units of "CT values," which only mean something in the context of a specific assay and testing platform. Here, we compared saliva versus NP swabs in a real-world setting without restriction and report all results in natural units-the amount of virus being shed-showing that saliva is essentially just as good as NP swabs.

Diagnostic performance of different sampling approaches for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparative performance of different clinical sampling methods for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR among populations with suspected infection remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of different clinical specimen collection methods.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and Research Square from Jan 1, 2000, to Nov 16, 2020. We included original clinical studies that examined the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs and any additional respiratory specimens for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals presenting in ambulatory care. Studies without data on paired samples, or those that only examined different samples from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases were not useful for examining diagnostic performance of a test and were excluded. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, was examined using random effects models and double arcsine transformation.

FINDINGS

Of the 5577 studies identified in our search, 23 studies including 7973 participants with 16 762 respiratory samples were included. Respiratory specimens examined in these studies included 7973 nasopharyngeal swabs, 1622 nasal swabs, 6110 saliva samples, 338 throat swabs, and 719 pooled nasal and throat swabs. Using nasopharyngeal swabs as the gold standard, pooled nasal and throat swabs gave the highest sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 93-100), whereas lower sensitivities were achieved by saliva (85%, 75-93) and nasal swabs (86%, 77-93) and a much lower sensitivity by throat swabs (68%, 35-94). A comparably high positive predictive value was obtained by pooled nasal and throat (97%, 90-100) and nasal swabs (96%, 87-100) and a slightly lower positive predictive value by saliva (93%, 88-97). Throat swabs have the lowest positive predictive value of 75% (95% CI 45-96). Comparably high specificities (range 97-99%) and negative predictive value (range 95-99%) were observed among different clinical specimens. Comparison between health-care-worker collection and self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs showed comparable diagnostic performance. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the analysis of pooled nasal and throat swabs and throat swabs, whereas moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I2 ≥30%) was observed in studies on saliva and nasal swabs.

INTERPRETATION

Our review suggests that, compared with the gold standard of nasopharyngeal swabs, pooled nasal and throat swabs offered the best diagnostic performance of the alternative sampling approaches for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ambulatory care. Saliva and nasal swabs gave comparable and very good diagnostic performance and are clinically acceptable alternative specimen collection methods. Throat swabs gave a much lower sensitivity and positive predictive value and should not be recommended. Self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs was not associated with any significant impairment of diagnostic accuracy. Our results also provide a useful reference framework for the proper interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 testing results using different clinical specimens.

FUNDING

Hong Kong Research Grants Council.

Diagnostic performance of different sampling approaches for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparative performance of different clinical sampling methods for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR among populations with suspected infection remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of different clinical specimen collection methods.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and Research Square from Jan 1, 2000, to Nov 16, 2020. We included original clinical studies that examined the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs and any additional respiratory specimens for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals presenting in ambulatory care. Studies without data on paired samples, or those that only examined different samples from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases were not useful for examining diagnostic performance of a test and were excluded. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, was examined using random effects models and double arcsine transformation.

FINDINGS

Of the 5577 studies identified in our search, 23 studies including 7973 participants with 16 762 respiratory samples were included. Respiratory specimens examined in these studies included 7973 nasopharyngeal swabs, 1622 nasal swabs, 6110 saliva samples, 338 throat swabs, and 719 pooled nasal and throat swabs. Using nasopharyngeal swabs as the gold standard, pooled nasal and throat swabs gave the highest sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 93-100), whereas lower sensitivities were achieved by saliva (85%, 75-93) and nasal swabs (86%, 77-93) and a much lower sensitivity by throat swabs (68%, 35-94). A comparably high positive predictive value was obtained by pooled nasal and throat (97%, 90-100) and nasal swabs (96%, 87-100) and a slightly lower positive predictive value by saliva (93%, 88-97). Throat swabs have the lowest positive predictive value of 75% (95% CI 45-96). Comparably high specificities (range 97-99%) and negative predictive value (range 95-99%) were observed among different clinical specimens. Comparison between health-care-worker collection and self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs showed comparable diagnostic performance. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the analysis of pooled nasal and throat swabs and throat swabs, whereas moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I² ≥30%) was observed in studies on saliva and nasal swabs.

INTERPRETATION

Our review suggests that, compared with the gold standard of nasopharyngeal swabs, pooled nasal and throat swabs offered the best diagnostic performance of the alternative sampling approaches for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ambulatory care. Saliva and nasal swabs gave comparable and very good diagnostic performance and are clinically acceptable alternative specimen collection methods. Throat swabs gave a much lower sensitivity and positive predictive value and should not be recommended. Self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs was not associated with any significant impairment of diagnostic accuracy. Our results also provide a useful reference framework for the proper interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 testing results using different clinical specimens.

FUNDING

Hong Kong Research Grants Council.

Reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 with patient-collected swabs and saline gargles: A three-headed comparison on multiple molecular platforms

With increasing demands for SARS-CoV-2 testing, as well as the shortages for testing supplies, collection devices, and trained healthcare workers (HCWs) to collect specimens, self-collection is an attractive prospect to reduce the need for HCWs and expenditure of personal protective equipment. Apart from the traditional nasopharyngeal swab used for SARS-CoV-2 detection, alternative specimens have been validated such as a combined swabs of the oropharynx and anterior nares (OP/N), or throat samples using saline gargles. Both the alternative specimen types are amenable to self-collection. Objectives. This study aimed to compare the sensitivity of HCW-collected (OP/N) swabs, self-collected OP/N swabs, and self-collected saline gargles. Among 38 individuals previously testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (or their close contacts), two self-collected specimen types (OP/N and saline gargles) were compared to HCW-collected OP/N swabs. SARS-CoV-2 testing was performed on three molecular assays: a laboratory-developed test (LDT), and two commercial assays on automated platforms: Cobas 6800 (Roche Diagnostics) and Panther (Hologic). The sensitivity of self-collected OP/N swabs was equivalent to healthcare worker (HCW)-collected OP/N swabs at 100.0 % [92.6%-100.0%] for all three molecular tests. The sensitivity of saline gargles was not significantly different than HCW-collected OP/N swabs, but varied slightly between instruments at 93.8 % [85.9%-93.8%] for the LDT, 96.8 % [88.6%-96.8%] for the Cobas assay, and 96.7 % [89.2%-96.9%] for the Panther assay. Overall, self-collection using OP/N swabs or saline gargles are reasonable alternatives to HCW-based collections for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and could facilitate broader surveillance strategies.

Nasal Swab Performance by Collection Timing, Procedure, and Method of Transport for Patients with SARS-CoV-2

The urgent need for large-scale diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 has prompted interest in sample collection methods of sufficient sensitivity to replace nasopharynx (NP) sampling. Nasal swab samples are an attractive alternative; however, previous studies have disagreed over how nasal sampling performs relative to NP sampling. Here, we compared nasal versus NP specimens collected by health care workers in a cohort of individuals clinically suspected of COVID-19 as well as SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription (RT)-PCR-positive outpatients undergoing follow-up. We compared subjects being seen for initial evaluation versus follow-up, two different nasal swab collection protocols, and three different transport conditions, including traditional viral transport media (VTM) and dry swabs, on 307 total study participants. We compared categorical results and viral loads to those from standard NP swabs collected at the same time from the same patients. All testing was performed by RT-PCR on the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 RealTime emergency use authorization (EUA) (limit of detection [LoD], 100 copies viral genomic RNA/ml transport medium). We found low concordance overall, with Cohen's kappa (κ) of 0.49, with high concordance only for subjects with very high viral loads. We found medium concordance for testing at initial presentation (κ = 0.68) and very low concordance for follow-up testing (κ = 0.27). Finally, we show that previous reports of high concordance may have resulted from measurement using assays with sensitivity of ≥1,000 copies/ml. These findings suggest nasal-swab testing be used for situations in which viral load is expected to be high, as we demonstrate that nasal swab testing is likely to miss patients with low viral loads.

Performing nasopharyngeal swabs-Guidelines based on an anatomical study

Nasopharyngeal swabs are performed to collect material for diagnosing diseases affecting the respiratory system, such as Covid‐19. Yet, no systematic anatomical study defines concrete prerequisites for successfully targeting the nasopharyngeal mucosa. We therefore aim at simulating nasopharyngeal swabs in human body donors to characterize parameters allowing and supporting to enter the nasopharynx with a swab, while avoiding endangering the cribriform plate. With the aid of metal probes and commercial swabs a total of 314 nasopharyngeal swabs in anatomical head/neck specimens stemming from 157 body donors were simulated. Important anatomical parameters were photo‐documented and measured. We provide information on angles and distances between prominent anatomical landmarks and particularly important positions the probe occupies during its advancement through the nares to the upper and lower parts of the nasopharynx and cribriform plate. Based on these data we suggest a simple and safe three‐step procedure for conducting nasopharyngeal swabs. In addition, we define easily recognizable signals for its correct performance. Evaluations prove that this procedure in all specimens without deformations of the nasal cavity allows the swab to enter the nasopharynx, whereas a widespread used alternative only succeeds in less than 50%. Our data will be the key for the successful collection of nasopharyngeal material for detecting and characterizing pathogens, such as SARS‐CoV‐2, which have a high affinity to pharyngeal mucosa. They demonstrate that the danger for damaging the cribriform plate or olfactory mucosa with swabs is unlikely, but potentially higher when performing nasal swabs.

Role of additive manufacturing in medical application COVID-19 scenario: India case study

This paper reviews how the Additive Manufacturing (AM) industry played a key role in stopping the spread of the Coronavirus by providing customized parts on-demand quickly and locally, reducing waste and eliminating the need for an extensive manufacturer. The AM technology uses digital files for the production of crucial medical parts, which has been proven essential during the COVID-19 crisis. Going ahead, the 3D printable clinical model resources described here will probably be extended in various centralized model storehouses with new inventive open-source models. Government agencies, individuals, corporations and universities are working together to quickly development of various 3D-printed products especially when established supply chains are under distress, and supply cannot keep up with demand.

Centenarians and extremely old people living with frailty can elicit durable SARS-CoV-2 spike specific IgG antibodies with virus neutralization functions following virus infection as determined by serological study

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2) has led to more than 165 million COVID-19 cases and >3.4 million deaths worldwide. Epidemiological analysis has revealed that the risk of developing severe COVID-19 increases with age. Despite a disproportionate number of older individuals and long-term care facilities being affected by SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, very little is understood about the immune responses and development of humoral immunity in the extremely old person after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here we conducted a serological study to investigate the development of humoral immunity in centenarians following a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in a long-term care facility.

METHODS

Extreme aged individuals and centenarians who were residents in a long-term care facility and infected with or exposed to SARS-CoV-2 were investigated between April and June 2020 for the development of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Blood samples were collected from positive and bystander individuals 30 and 60 days after original diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Plasma was used to quantify IgG, IgA, and IgM isotypes and subsequent subclasses of antibodies specific for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The function of anti-spike was then assessed by virus neutralization assays against the native SARS-CoV-2 virus.

FINDINGS

Fifteen long-term care residents were investigated for SARS-CoV-2 infection. All individuals had a Clinical Frailty scale score ≥5 and were of extreme older age or were centenarians. Six women with a median age of 98.8 years tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Anti-spike IgG antibody titers were the highest titers observed in our cohort with all IgG positive individuals having virus neutralization ability. Additionally, 5 out of the 6 positive participants had a robust IgA anti-SARS-CoV-2 response. In all 5, antibodies were detected after 60 days from initial diagnosis.

Tools and Techniques for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)/COVID-19 Detection

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has led to millions of confirmed cases and deaths worldwide. Efficient diagnostic tools are in high demand, as rapid and large-scale testing plays a pivotal role in patient management and decelerating disease spread. This paper reviews current technologies used to detect SARS-CoV-2 in clinical laboratories as well as advances made for molecular, antigen-based, and immunological point-of-care testing, including recent developments in sensor and biosensor devices. The importance of the timing and type of specimen collection is discussed, along with factors such as disease prevalence, setting, and methods. Details of the mechanisms of action of the various methodologies are presented, along with their application span and known performance characteristics. Diagnostic imaging techniques and biomarkers are also covered, with an emphasis on their use for assessing COVID-19 or monitoring disease severity or complications. While the SARS-CoV-2 literature is rapidly evolving, this review highlights topics of interest that have occurred during the pandemic and the lessons learned throughout. Exploring a broad armamentarium of techniques for detecting SARS-CoV-2 will ensure continued diagnostic support for clinicians, public health, and infection prevention and control for this pandemic and provide advice for future pandemic preparedness.

Delayed Rise of Oral Fluid Antibodies, Elevated BMI, and Absence of Early Fever Correlate With Longer Time to SARS-CoV-2 RNA Clearance in a Longitudinally Sampled Cohort of COVID-19 Outpatients

BACKGROUND

Sustained molecular detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA in the upper respiratory tract (URT) in mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is common. We sought to identify host and immune determinants of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection.

METHODS

Ninety-five symptomatic outpatients self-collected midturbinate nasal, oropharyngeal (OP), and gingival crevicular fluid (oral fluid) samples at home and in a research clinic a median of 6 times over 1-3 months. Samples were tested for viral RNA, virus culture, and SARS-CoV-2 and other human coronavirus antibodies, and associations were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Viral RNA clearance, as measured by SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), in 507 URT samples occurred a median (interquartile range) 33.5 (17-63.5) days post-symptom onset. Sixteen nasal-OP samples collected 2-11 days post-symptom onset were virus culture positive out of 183 RT-PCR-positive samples tested. All participants but 1 with positive virus culture were negative for concomitant oral fluid anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The mean time to first antibody detection in oral fluid was 8-13 days post-symptom onset. A longer time to first detection of oral fluid anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibodies (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99; P = .020) and body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2 (aHR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.18-0.78; P = .009) were independently associated with a longer time to SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA clearance. Fever as 1 of first 3 COVID-19 symptoms correlated with shorter time to viral RNA clearance (aHR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.02-4.18; P = .044).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate that delayed rise of oral fluid SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, elevated BMI, and absence of early fever are independently associated with delayed URT viral RNA clearance.

[The nasal and pharyngeal swab techniques during the COVID-19-pandemic - the ENT-perspective - SARS-CoV-2, Coronavirus, nasal swab, pharyngeal swab, complications]

Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, swabs or other samples have increasingly been taken from the upper aero-digestive tract, since high viral loads exist here, especially in the early stages of the disease. As diagnostic options, swabs from the anterior nose, from the nasopharynx, from the oropharynx or the extraction of throat rinse water or saliva are possible. The laboratory methods available are antigen tests that can be read in a few minutes or more lengthy RT-PCR methods in a lab. Swabs are carried out by physicians, medical staff, laypeople and in the self-test, in each case according to prior instructions. Many of these factors therefore have an influence on the informative value and the sensitivity of the entire diagnostic process. The PCR laboratory method is more sensitive than the antigen method; the swabs from the nasopharynx are considered the most valid smear site; correct execution of a test can be achieved even with non-professional individuals with good instructions. Complications with such swabs are reported very rarely, given the assumed number of procedures performed. Short-term nosebleeds after traumatic smears can be assumed without publications about it being found. Broken parts of swabs had to be removed by an ENT doctor. There are only very few reports on injuries to the skullbase with CSF-leaks, including 2 times with anomalies such as meningoceles. The choice of a suitable diagnostic medium depends on many parameters such as availability, the timing of the result, a smear test by knowledgeable staff or a self-test, and a number of other practical considerations.

Performance evaluation of a lateral flow assay for nasopharyngeal antigen detection for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 has become a global pandemic due to its capacity for rapid transmission. In this context, an early and rapid diagnosis of infected patients that do not require expensive equipment or highly trained personnel is crucial in order to reduce the contagious rate. The aim of this study was to evaluate a chromatographic immunoassay's performance for the rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-antigen.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study included 369 adults from Western México with diagnosis or suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Two samples were collected; a naso-oropharyngeal was used for a molecular determination of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The molecular analysis was carried out using DeCoV19 Kit Triplex (Genes2life S.A.P.I.) based on the CDC diagnostic panel for N1, N2, and N3 regions. The second sample was retrieved from a nasopharyngeal rub and used for the rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 antigen employing the commercial STANDARD™ Q COVID-19 Ag Test (SD BIOSENSOR).

RESULTS

Overall, in 28.2% of the patients was detected the SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and 21.4% were positive for antigen detection. The rapid antigen test showed a sensitivity and specificity of 75.9% and 100%, respectively, with a positive predictive and negative values of 100% and 91%. Symptoms as anosmia presented a high OR for the positive diagnosis for both test, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and the rapid antigen test of 8.86 (CI = 4.91-16) and 6.09 (CI = 3.42-10.85), respectively.

CONCLUSION

SD BIOSENSOR is a useful assay, but some caveats must be considered before the general implementation.

Evaluation of Specimen Types and Saliva Stabilization Solutions for SARS-CoV-2 Testing

Identifying SARS-CoV-2 infections through aggressive diagnostic testing remains critical to tracking and curbing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Collection of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), the preferred sample type for SARS-CoV-2 detection, has become difficult due to the dramatic increase in testing and consequent supply strain.

Identifying SARS-CoV-2 infections through aggressive diagnostic testing remains critical to tracking and curbing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Collection of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), the preferred sample type for SARS-CoV-2 detection, has become difficult due to the dramatic increase in testing and consequent supply strain. Therefore, alternative specimen types have been investigated that provide similar detection sensitivity with reduced health care exposure and the potential for self-collection. In this study, the detection sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 in nasal swabs (NS) and saliva was compared to that of NPS using matched specimens from two outpatient cohorts in New York State (total n = 463). The first cohort showed only a 5.4% positivity, but the second cohort (n = 227) had a positivity rate of 41%, with sensitivity in NPS, NS, and saliva of 97.9%, 87.1%, and 87.1%, respectively. Whether the reduced sensitivity of NS or saliva is acceptable must be assessed in the settings where they are used. However, we sought to improve on it by validating a method to mix the two sample types, as the combination of nasal swab and saliva resulted in 94.6% SARS-CoV-2 detection sensitivity. Spiking experiments showed that combining them did not adversely affect the detection sensitivity in either. Virus stability in saliva was also investigated, with and without the addition of commercially available stabilizing solutions. The virus was stable in saliva at both 4°C and room temperature for up to 7 days. The addition of stabilizing solutions did not enhance stability and, in some situations, reduced detectable virus levels.

Performance of Saliva, Oropharyngeal Swabs, and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the highest-yield sample for diagnostic testing for respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The need to increase capacity for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a variety of settings, combined with shortages of sample collection supplies, have motivated a search for alternative sample types with high sensitivity. We systematically reviewed the literature to understand the performance of alternative sample types compared to NP swabs. We systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv (last retrieval 1 October 2020) for comparative studies of alternative specimen types (saliva, oropharyngeal [OP], and nasal [NS] swabs) versus NP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). A logistic-normal random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate % positive alternative-specimen, % positive NP, and % dual positives overall and in subgroups. The QUADAS 2 tool was used to assess bias. From 1,253 unique citations, we identified 25 saliva, 11 NS, 6 OP, and 4 OP/NS studies meeting inclusion criteria. Three specimen types captured lower % positives (NS [82%, 95% CI: 73 to 90%], OP [84%, 95% CI: 57 to 100%], and saliva [88%, 95% CI: 81 to 93%]) than NP swabs, while combined OP/NS matched NP performance (97%, 95% CI: 90 to 100%). Absence of RNA extraction (saliva) and utilization of a more sensitive NAAT (NS) substantially decreased alternative-specimen yield of positive samples. NP swabs remain the gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, although alternative specimens are promising. Much remains unknown about the impact of variations in specimen collection, processing protocols, and population (pediatric versus adult, late versus early in disease course), such that head-to head studies of sampling strategies are urgently needed.

Performance of Saliva, Oropharyngeal Swabs, and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the highest-yield sample for diagnostic testing for respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The need to increase capacity for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a variety of settings, combined with shortages of sample collection supplies, have motivated a search for alternative sample types with high sensitivity. We systematically reviewed the literature to understand the performance of alternative sample types compared to NP swabs. We systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv (last retrieval 1 October 2020) for comparative studies of alternative specimen types (saliva, oropharyngeal [OP], and nasal [NS] swabs) versus NP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). A logistic-normal random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate % positive alternative-specimen, % positive NP, and % dual positives overall and in subgroups. The QUADAS 2 tool was used to assess bias. From 1,253 unique citations, we identified 25 saliva, 11 NS, 6 OP, and 4 OP/NS studies meeting inclusion criteria. Three specimen types captured lower % positives (NS [82%, 95% CI: 73 to 90%], OP [84%, 95% CI: 57 to 100%], and saliva [88%, 95% CI: 81 to 93%]) than NP swabs, while combined OP/NS matched NP performance (97%, 95% CI: 90 to 100%). Absence of RNA extraction (saliva) and utilization of a more sensitive NAAT (NS) substantially decreased alternative-specimen yield of positive samples. NP swabs remain the gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, although alternative specimens are promising. Much remains unknown about the impact of variations in specimen collection, processing protocols, and population (pediatric versus adult, late versus early in disease course), such that head-to head studies of sampling strategies are urgently needed.

Evaluation of Specimen Types and Saliva Stabilization Solutions for SARS-CoV-2 Testing

Identifying SARS-CoV-2 infections through aggressive diagnostic testing remains critical to tracking and curbing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Collection of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), the preferred sample type for SARS-CoV-2 detection, has become difficult due to the dramatic increase in testing and consequent supply strain. Therefore, alternative specimen types have been investigated that provide similar detection sensitivity with reduced health care exposure and the potential for self-collection. In this study, the detection sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 in nasal swabs (NS) and saliva was compared to that of NPS using matched specimens from two outpatient cohorts in New York State (total n = 463). The first cohort showed only a 5.4% positivity, but the second cohort (n = 227) had a positivity rate of 41%, with sensitivity in NPS, NS, and saliva of 97.9%, 87.1%, and 87.1%, respectively. Whether the reduced sensitivity of NS or saliva is acceptable must be assessed in the settings where they are used. However, we sought to improve on it by validating a method to mix the two sample types, as the combination of nasal swab and saliva resulted in 94.6% SARS-CoV-2 detection sensitivity. Spiking experiments showed that combining them did not adversely affect the detection sensitivity in either. Virus stability in saliva was also investigated, with and without the addition of commercially available stabilizing solutions. The virus was stable in saliva at both 4°C and room temperature for up to 7 days. The addition of stabilizing solutions did not enhance stability and, in some situations, reduced detectable virus levels.

Comparison of Throat Washings, Nasopharyngeal Swabs and Oropharyngeal Swabs for Detection of SARS-CoV-2

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA is detected by reverse-transcription quantitative real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) from respiratory specimens. This study compares throat washings (TW), nasopharyngeal swabs (NS) and oropharyngeal swabs (OS). A total of 102 samples from 34 adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were analysed by RT-qPCR with absolute quantification. The median concentrations and diagnostic sensitivities were 5.8×104 copies/mL, 85% (NS), 1.4×104, 79% (OS) and 4.3×103, 85% (TW). Concentration differences were significant between NS and TW (P = 0.019). Saliva (SA) was available from 21 patients (median 3.4×103). OS and TW can be considered for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics, although with slightly lower concentrations.

Complications of nasal and pharyngeal swabs: a relevant challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic?

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic comprises approximately 50 million confirmed cases and over 1.2 million deaths as of 10 November, 2020 [1], affecting healthcare systems worldwide in an unprecedented way. In the absence of effective treatments or preventive measures, all attempts to control the pandemic are based on reliable diagnostic procedures, particularly RT-PCR of upper respiratory specimens, which is considered the diagnostic gold standard [2]. A previously unimaginable number of these diagnostic procedures has been performed since the beginning of the pandemic and there is a clear trend towards further expanding the number of tests [3]. Although specimens are frequently obtained by semi-skilled temporary staff, the collection is generally considered safe. However, possible adverse events of the procedure have largely escaped systematic recording and reporting to date. A Pubmed search, performed on 10 October, 2020, using every possible combination of the search terms “complications”, “adverse events”, “adverse effects” and “nasal swab”, “oral swab”, “nasopharyngeal swab”, “oropharyngeal swab”, revealed only three publications relevant for the question of adverse events caused by pharyngeal swab procedures. The first one represents a case report describing the break of a nasal swab by triggering the swab's breakpoint mechanism during the examination of an uncooperative patient [4]. The second publication compared commercially available swabs with three-dimensional printed nasopharyngeal swabs, reporting different mild complications in several individuals, and one individual with severe epistaxis needing medical help [5]. Lastly, one case of cerebrospinal fluid leak requiring endoscopic surgical repair was reported after a nasal COVID-19 test [6]. Of note, even the second study investigated adverse events in only 176 individuals [5].

Although swab procedures during SARS-CoV-2 testing are generally safe (3 adverse events in 11 476 swab procedures; 0.026%), increased awareness of complications is necessary, considering approximately 5.1 million tests conducted worldwide daily.https://bit.ly/2J5sd96

Diagnostic accuracy of nasopharyngeal swab, nasal swab and saliva swab samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR

Background

The current gold standard in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) diagnostics is the real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. Alternatively, nasal swab (NS) or saliva swab (SS) specimens are used, although available data on test accuracy are limited. We examined the diagnostic accuracy of NPS/NS/SS samples for this purpose.

Methods

Ten patients were included after being tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in NPS samples according to the National Institute of Infectious Disease guidelines. In comparison with this conventional diagnostic method, NPS/NS/SS samples were tested using the cobas 6800 systems RT-PCR device. To investigate the usefulness of the cobas method and the difference among sample types, the agreement and sensitivity were calculated. Five to six samples were collected over a total period of 5–6 d from each patient.

Results

Fifty-seven sets of NPS/NS/SS samples were collected, of which 40 tested positive for COVID-19 by the conventional method. Overall, the concordance rates using the conventional method were 86.0%/70.2%/54.4% for NPS/NS/SS samples (cobas); however, for samples collected up to and including on Day 9 after disease onset (22 negative and one positive specimens), the corresponding rates were 95.7%/87.0%/65.2%. The overall sensitivity estimates were 100.0%/67.5%/37.5% for NPS/NS/SS samples (cobas). For samples up to 9 d after onset, the corresponding values were 100.0%/86.4%/63.6%.

Conclusions

NS samples are more reliable than SS samples and can be an alternative to NPS samples. They can be a useful diagnostic method in the future.

COVID-19 Pandemic: Review of Contemporary and Forthcoming Detection Tools

Recent severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) known as COVID-19, presents a deadly challenge to the global healthcare system of developing and developed countries, exposing the limitations of health facilities preparedness for emerging infectious disease pandemic. Opportune detection, confinement, and early treatment of infected cases present the first step in combating COVID-19. In this review, we elaborate on various COVID-19 diagnostic tools that are available or under investigation. Consequently, cell culture, followed by an indirect fluorescent antibody, is one of the most accurate methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, restrictions imposed by the regulatory authorities prevented its general use and implementation. Diagnosis via radiologic imaging and reverse transcriptase PCR assay is frequently employed, considered as standard procedures, whereas isothermal amplification methods are currently on the verge of clinical introduction. Notably, techniques such as CRISPR-Cas and microfluidics have added new dimensions to the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Furthermore, commonly used immunoassays such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), neutralization assay, and the chemiluminescent assay can also be used for early detection and surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Finally, advancement in the next generation sequencing (NGS) and metagenomic analysis are smoothing the viral detection further in this global challenge.

Delayed rise of oral fluid antibodies, elevated BMI, and absence of early fever correlate with longer time to SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance in an longitudinally sampled cohort of COVID-19 outpatients

Background

Sustained molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the upper respiratory tract (URT) in mild to moderate COVID-19 is common. We sought to identify host and immune determinants of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection.

Methods

Ninety-five outpatients self-collected mid-turbinate nasal, oropharyngeal (OP), and gingival crevicular fluid (oral fluid) samples at home and in a research clinic a median of 6 times over 1-3 months. Samples were tested for viral RNA, virus culture, and SARS-CoV-2 and other human coronavirus antibodies, and associations were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

Viral RNA clearance, as measured by SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, in 507 URT samples occurred a median (IQR) 33.5 (17-63.5) days post-symptom onset. Sixteen nasal-OP samples collected 2-11 days post-symptom onset were virus culture positive out of 183 RT-PCR positive samples tested. All participants but one with positive virus culture were negative for concomitant oral fluid anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The mean time to first antibody detection in oral fluid was 8-13 days post-symptom onset. A longer time to first detection of oral fluid anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibodies (aHR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92-0.99, p=0.020) and BMI ≥ 25kg/m ² (aHR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18-0.78, p=0.009) were independently associated with a longer time to SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA clearance. Fever as one of first three COVID-19 symptoms correlated with shorter time to viral RNA clearance (aHR 2.06, 95% CI 1.02-4.18, p=0.044).

Conclusions

We demonstrate that delayed rise of oral fluid SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, elevated BMI, and absence of early fever are independently associated with delayed URT viral RNA clearance.

DETECT Schools Study Protocol: A Prospective Observational Cohort Surveillance Study Investigating the Impact of COVID-19 in Western Australian Schools

Introduction: Amidst the evolving COVID-19 pandemic, understanding the transmission dynamics of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is key to providing peace of mind for the community and informing policy-making decisions. While available data suggest that school-aged children are not significant spreaders of SARS-CoV-2, the possibility of transmission in schools remains an ongoing concern, especially among an aging teaching workforce. Even in low-prevalence settings, communities must balance the potential risk of transmission with the need for students' ongoing education. Through the roll out of high-throughput school-based SARS-CoV-2 testing, enhanced follow-up for individuals exposed to COVID-19 and wellbeing surveys, this study investigates the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and the current psychosocial wellbeing impacts of the pandemic in school communities. Methods: The DETECT Schools Study is a prospective observational cohort surveillance study in 79 schools across Western Australia (WA), Australia. To investigate the incidence, transmission and impact of SARS-CoV-2 in schools, the study comprises three "modules": Module 1) Spot-testing in schools to screen for asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2; Module 2) Enhanced surveillance of close contacts following the identification of any COVID-19 case to determine the secondary attack rate of SARS-CoV-2 in a school setting; and Module 3) Survey monitoring of school staff, students and their parents to assess psycho-social wellbeing following the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in WA. Clinical Trial Registration: Trial registration number: ACTRN12620000922976.

Misinterpretation of viral load in COVID-19 clinical outcomes

Knowledge of viral load is essential to formulate strategies for antiviral treatment, vaccination, and epidemiological control of COVID-19. Moreover, identification of patients with high viral loads can also be useful to understand risk factors such as age, comorbidities, severity of symptoms and hypoxia, to decide on the need for hospitalization. Several ongoing studies are analyzing viral load in different types of samples and evaluating its relationship with clinical outcomes and viral transmission pathways. However, in a great number of emerging studies, cycle threshold (Ct) values alone are often used as viral load indicators, which may be a mistake. In this study, we compared tracheal aspirate with nasopharyngeal swab samples obtained from critically ill COVID-19 patients and here we report how the raw Ct can lead to misinterpretation of results. Furthermore, based on analysis of nasopharyngeal swab samples we propose a method to reduce evaluation errors that could occur from using raw Ct data. Based on these findings, we show the impact that normalization of Ct values has on interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 viral load from different biological samples.

Variability in instructions for performance of nasopharyngeal swabs across Canada in the era of COVID-19 - what type of swab is actually being performed?

BACKGROUND

The primary method of surveillance for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 is with nasopharyngeal swabs. Given the significant demand for nasopharyngeal swabs, a large number of previously untrained and unfamiliar staff are now performing this test. It was noted that there was significant heterogeneity in instructions for performing nasopharyngeal swabs in Canada, in contrast to the guidance provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). The objective of this study was to review the instructions provided across Canada and contrast them to those of the CDC and PAHO.

METHODS

A standard series of steps for nasopharyngeal swab performance was outlined based on the CDC, PAHO, and New England Journal of Medicine instructions. A comprehensive search was performed in August 2020 to identify nasopharyngeal swab guidelines provided by public health in the provinces and territories of Canada. Regional health authority guidance was also collected. Instructions provided were contrasted against the standardized steps.

RESULTS

Instructions were identified for all provinces and territories, and for 81 regional health authorities. From the provincial and territorial guidelines, 10/13 (77%) cleared the nasal passages before swab insertion, 11/13 (85%) tilted the patient's head back slightly, 12/13 (92%) inserted the swab parallel to the palate, but only 3/13 (23%) inserted the swab to at least a depth of two-thirds the distance between the patient's nose and ear. A clear majority (81%) of regional health authority guidelines followed their respective provincial guidelines. For depth of insertion, Quebec provided a pictogram but no distance or technique for estimation. Six provinces and territories - Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Alberta - recommended 4 cm or one-half the distance from nostrils to ear. British Columbia and Manitoba recommended a 7 cm depth of insertion. Nova Scotia recommended one-half to two-thirds the distance from nose to ear. Lastly, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and the Yukon recommended an insertion from nose to the external ear canal.

CONCLUSION

There is significant heterogeneity in guidance for nasopharyngeal swab performance across Canada. The instructions provided by the majority of provinces and territories in Canada would not be effective in reaching the nasopharynx.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing

BACKGROUND

Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Direct detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acids in respiratory tract specimens informs patient, healthcare institution and public health level decision-making. The numbers of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests are rapidly increasing, as is the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recognized a significant need for frequently updated systematic reviews of the literature to inform evidence-based best practice guidance.

OBJECTIVE

The IDSA's goal was to develop an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss the nuance of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings and highlight important unmet research needs in the COVID-19 diagnostic testing space.

METHODS

IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 17 diagnostic recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention and the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Information on the clinical performance of available tests is rapidly emerging, but the quality of evidence of the current literature is considered moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is recommended for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case. Testing asymptomatic individuals without known exposure is suggested when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions, dictate eligibility for surgery, or inform solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation timing. Ultimately, prioritization of testing will depend on institutional-specific resources and the needs of different patient populations.