Direct comparison of clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva from buccal swabs versus combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron

Background/Purpose: While current guidelines recommend the use of respiratory tract specimens for the direct detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, saliva has recently been suggested as preferred sample type for the sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron). By comparing saliva collected using buccal swabs and oro-/ nasopharyngeal swabs from patients hospitalized due to COVID-19, we aimed at identifying potential differences in virus detection sensitivity between these sample types. Methods: We compare the clinical diagnostic sensitivity of paired buccal swabs and combined oro-/nasopha- ryngeal swabs from hospitalized, symptomatic COVID-19 patients collected at median six days after symptom onset by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antigen test. Results: Of the tested SARS-CoV-2 positive sample pairs, 55.8% were identified as SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and 44.2% as Omicron BA.2. Real-time PCR from buccal swabs generated significantly higher quantification cycle (Cq) values compared to those from matched combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs and resulted in an increased number of false-negative PCR results. Reduced diagnostic sensitivity of buccal swabs by real-time PCR was observed already at day one after symptom onset. Similarly, antigen test detection rates were reduced in buccal swabs compared to combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs. Conclusion: Our results suggest reduced clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva collected using buccal swabs when compared to combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron in symptomatic individualsGraphische Zusammenfassung, als Datei angehängt.Peer Reviewe

Sensitive on-site detection of SARS-CoV-2 by ID NOW COVID-19

Point of care detection of SARS-CoV-2 is one pillar in a containment strategy and important to break infection chains. Here we report the sensitive, specific and robust detection of SARS-CoV-2 and respective variants of concern by the ID NOW COVID-19 device.Peer Reviewe

Discrimination of SARS-CoV-2 Infections From Other Viral Respiratory Infections by Scent Detection Dogs

Background: Testing of possibly infected individuals remains cornerstone of containing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Detection dogs could contribute to mass screening. Previous research demonstrated canines' ability to detect SARS-CoV-2-infections but has not investigated if dogs can differentiate between COVID-19 and other virus infections. Methods: Twelve dogs were trained to detect SARS-CoV-2 positive samples. Three test scenarios were performed to evaluate their ability to discriminate SARS-CoV-2-infections from viral infections of a different aetiology. Naso- and oropharyngeal swab samples from individuals and samples from cell culture both infected with one of 15 viruses that may cause COVID-19-like symptoms were presented as distractors in a randomised, double-blind study. Dogs were either trained with SARS-CoV-2 positive saliva samples (test scenario I and II) or with supernatant from cell cultures (test scenario III). Results: When using swab samples from individuals infected with viruses other than SARS-CoV-2 as distractors (test scenario I), dogs detected swab samples from SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals with a mean diagnostic sensitivity of 73.8% (95% CI: 66.0–81.7%) and a specificity of 95.1% (95% CI: 92.6–97.7%). In test scenario II and III cell culture supernatant from cells infected with SARS-CoV-2, cells infected with other coronaviruses and non-infected cells were presented. Dogs achieved mean diagnostic sensitivities of 61.2% (95% CI: 50.7–71.6%, test scenario II) and 75.8% (95% CI: 53.0–98.5%, test scenario III), respectively. The diagnostic specificities were 90.9% (95% CI: 87.3–94.6%, test scenario II) and 90.2% (95% CI: 81.1–99.4%, test scenario III), respectively. Conclusion: In all three test scenarios the mean specificities were above 90% which indicates that dogs can distinguish SARS-CoV-2-infections from other viral infections. However, compared to earlier studies our scent dogs achieved lower diagnostic sensitivities. To deploy COVID-19 detection dogs as a reliable screening method it is therefore mandatory to include a variety of samples from different viral respiratory tract infections in dog training to ensure a successful discrimination process.Peer Reviewe

Resource-efficient internally controlled in-house real-time PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2

Background The reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 has become one of the most important contributions to COVID-19 crisis management. With the publication of the first sequences of SARS-CoV-2, several diagnostic PCR assays have been developed and published. In addition to in-house assays the market was flooded with numerous commercially available ready-to-use PCR kits, with both approaches showing alarming shortages in reagent supply. Aim Here we present a resource-efficient in-house protocol for the PCR detection of SARS- CoV-2 RNA in patient specimens (RKI/ZBS1 SARS-CoV-2 protocol). Methods Two duplex one-step real-time RT-PCR assays are run simultaneously and provide information on two different SARS-CoV-2 genomic regions. Each one is duplexed with a control that either indicates potential PCR inhibition or proves the successful extraction of nucleic acid from the clinical specimen. Results Limit of RNA detection for both SARS-CoV-2 assays is below 10 genomes per reaction. The protocol enables testing specimens in duplicate across the two different SARS-CoV-2 PCR assays, saving reagents by increasing testing capacity. The protocol can be run on various PCR cyclers with several PCR master mix kits. Conclusion The presented RKI/ZBS1 SARS-CoV-2 protocol represents a cost-effective alternative in times of shortages when commercially available ready-to-use kits may not be available or affordable.Peer Reviewe

Flexible upscaling of laboratory PCR testing capacity at the Robert Koch Institute during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

Abstract Background Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, laboratories worldwide have been facing an unprecedented increase in demand for PCR testing because of the high importance of diagnostics for prevention and control of virus spread. Moreover, testing demand has been varying considerably over time, depending on the epidemiological situation, rendering efficient resource allocation difficult. Here, we present a scalable workflow which we implemented in our laboratory to increase PCR testing capacity while maintaining high flexibility regarding the number of samples to be processed. Methods We compared the performance of five automated extraction instruments, using dilutions of SARS-CoV-2 cell culture supernatant as well as clinical samples. To increase PCR throughput, we combined the two duplex PCR reactions of our previously published SARS-CoV-2 PCR assay into one quadruplex reaction and compared their limit of detection as well as their performance on the detection of low viral loads in clinical samples. Furthermore, we developed a sample pooling protocol with either two or four samples per pool, combined with a specifically adapted SARS-CoV-2 quadruplex PCR assay, and compared the diagnostic sensitivity of pooled testing and individual testing. Results All tested automated extraction instruments yielded comparable results regarding the subsequent sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection by PCR. While the limit of detection of the quadruplex SARS-CoV-2 PCR assay (E-Gene assay: 28.7 genome equivalents (ge)/reaction, orf1ab assay: 32.0 ge/reaction) was slightly higher than that of our previously published duplex PCR assays (E-Gene assay: 9.8 ge/reaction, orf1ab assay: 6.6 ge/reaction), the rate of correctly identified positive patient samples was comparable for both assays. Sample pooling with optimized downstream quadruplex PCR showed no loss in diagnostic sensitivity compared to individual testing. Conclusion Specific adaptation of PCR assays can help overcome the potential loss of sensitivity due to higher levels of PCR multiplexing or sample dilution in pooled testing. Combining these adapted PCR assays with different sample processing strategies provides a simple and highly adjustable workflow for resource-efficient SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. The presented principles can easily be adopted in a variety of laboratory settings as well as be adapted to pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2, making it feasible for any laboratory that conducts PCR diagnostics

Comparative sensitivity evaluation for 122 CE-marked rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 antigen, Germany, September 2020 to April 2021

INTRODUCTION: Numerous CE-marked SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag RDT) are offered in Europe, several of them with unconfirmed quality claims. AIM: We performed an independent head-to-head evaluation of the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 Ag RDT offered in Germany. METHODS: We addressed the sensitivity of 122 Ag RDT in direct comparison using a common evaluation panel comprised of 50 specimens. Minimum sensitivity of 75% for panel specimens with a PCR quantification cycle (Cq) ≤ 25 was used to identify Ag RDT eligible for reimbursement in the German healthcare system. RESULTS: The sensitivity of different SARS-CoV-2 Ag RDT varied over a wide range. The sensitivity limit of 75% for panel members with Cq ≤ 25 was met by 96 of the 122 tests evaluated; 26 tests exhibited lower sensitivity, few of which failed completely. Some RDT exhibited high sensitivity, e.g. 97.5 % for Cq < 30. CONCLUSIONS: This comparative evaluation succeeded in distinguishing less sensitive from better performing Ag RDT. Most of the evaluated Ag RDT appeared to be suitable for fast identification of acute infections associated with high viral loads. Market access of SARS-CoV-2 Ag RDT should be based on minimal requirements for sensitivity and specificity

RP105 engages phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase p110δ to facilitate the trafficking and secretion of cytokines in macrophages during mycobacterial infection

Cytokines are key regulators of adequate immune responses to infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis. We demonstrate that the p110 delta catalytic subunit of PI3K acts as a downstream effector of the TLR family member RP105 (CD180) in promoting mycobacteria-induced cytokine production by macrophages. Our data show that the significantly reduced release of TNF and IL-6 by RP105(-/-) macrophages during mycobacterial infection was not accompanied by diminished mRNA or protein expression. Mycobacteria induced comparable activation of NF-kappa B and p38 MAPK signaling in wild-type (WT) and RP105(-/-) macrophages. In contrast, mycobacteria-induced phosphorylation of Akt was abrogated in RP105(-/-) macrophages. The p110 delta-specific inhibitor, Cal-101, and small interfering RNA-mediated knockdown of p110 delta diminished mycobacteria-induced TNF secretion by WT but not RP105(-/-) macrophages. Such interference with p110 delta activity led to reduced surface-expressed TNF in WT but not RP105(-/-) macrophages, while leaving TNF mRNA and protein expression unaffected. Activity of Bruton's tyrosine kinase was required for RP105-mediated activation of Akt phosphorylation and TNF release by mycobacteria-infected macrophages. These data unveil a novel innate immune signaling axis that orchestrates key cytokine responses of macrophages and provide molecular insight into the functions of RP105 as an innate immune receptor for mycobacteria

Establishment of a specimen panel for the decentralised technical evaluation of the sensitivity of 31 rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 antigen, Germany, September 2020 to April 2021

INTRODUCTION: The detection of SARS-CoV-2 with rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) has become an important tool to identify infected people and break infection chains. These RDT are usually based on antigen detection in a lateral flow approach. AIM: We aimed to establish a comprehensive specimen panel for the decentralised technical evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests. METHODS: While for PCR diagnostics the validation of a PCR assay is well established, there is no common validation strategy for antigen tests, including RDT. In this proof-of-principle study we present the establishment of a panel of 50 pooled clinical specimens that cover a SARS-CoV-2 concentration range from 1.1 × 109 to 420 genome copies per mL of specimen. The panel was used to evaluate 31 RDT in up to six laboratories. RESULTS: Our results show that there is considerable variation in the detection limits and the clinical sensitivity of different RDT. We show that the best RDT can be applied to reliably identify infectious individuals who present with SARS-CoV-2 loads down to 106 genome copies per mL of specimen. For the identification of infected individuals with SARS-CoV-2 loads corresponding to less than 106 genome copies per mL, only three RDT showed a clinical sensitivity of more than 60%. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitive RDT can be applied to identify infectious individuals with high viral loads but not to identify all infected individuals

Results of German external quality assessment schemes for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic illustrated the important role of diagnostic tests, including lateral flow tests (LFTs), in identifying patients and their contacts to slow the spread of infections. INSTAND performed external quality assessments (EQA) for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection with lyophilized and chemically inactivated cell culture supernatant of SARS-CoV-2 infected Vero cells. A pre-study demonstrated the suitability of the material. Participants reported qualitative and/or quantitative antigen results using either LFTs or automated immunoassays for five EQA samples per survey. 711 data sets were reported for LFT detection in three surveys in 2021. This evaluation focused on the analytical sensitivity of different LFTs and automated immunoassays. The inter-laboratory results showed at least 94% correct results for non-variant of concern (VOC) SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection for viral loads of ≥ 4.75 × 106 copies/mL and SARS-CoV-2 negative samples. Up to 85% had success for a non-VOC viral load of ~ 1.60 × 106 copies/mL. A viral load of ~ 1.42 × 107 copies/mL of the Delta VOC was reported positive in > 96% of results. A high specificity was found with almost 100% negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen results for HCoV 229E and HCoV NL63 positive samples. Quantitative results correlated with increasing SARS-CoV-2 viral load but showed a broad scatter. This study shows promising SARS-CoV-2 antigen test performance of the participating laboratories, but further investigations with the now predominant Omicron VOC are needed