Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing has lagged in many countries because of test kit shortages and analytical process bottlenecks. This study investigated the feasibility and accuracy of a sample pooling approach for wide-scale population screening for coronavirus disease 2019. A total of 940 nasopharyngeal swab samples (934 negative and 6 positive) previously tested for SARS-CoV-2 were deidentified and assigned random numbers for analysis, and 94 pools of 10 samples each were generated. Automated RNA extraction, followed by RT-PCR, was performed in a 96-well plate. Positive pools were identified, and the individual samples were reanalyzed. Of the 94 pools/wells, four were positive [Ct values: N (22.7 to 28.3), ORF1ab (23.3 to 27.2), and internal control (34.4 to 35.4)]. The 40 samples comprising the four pools were identified and reanalyzed individually; six samples were positive, with Ct values of N gene, ORF1ab, and internal control comparable to their respective wells. Additional experiments were performed on samples with high Ct values, and overall results showed 91.6% positive and 100% negative agreement compared with individual testing approach. Thus, 940 samples were tested in 148 reactions compared with 940 reactions in routine screening. The sample pooling strategy may help catch up with testing needs and minimal turnaround times and facilitate enormous savings on laboratory supplies, extraction, and PCR kits currently in short supply.

The clinical performance of saliva compared with nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) has shown conflicting results in healthcare and community settings. In the present study, a total of 429 matched NPS and saliva sample pairs, collected in either healthcare or community setting, were evaluated. Phase-1 (protocol U) tested 240 matched NPS and saliva sample pairs; phase 2 (SalivaAll protocol) tested 189 matched NPS and saliva sample pairs, with an additional sample homogenization step before RNA extraction. A total of 85 saliva samples were evaluated with both protocols. In phase-1, 28.3% (68/240) samples tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from saliva, NPS, or both. The detection rate from saliva was lower compared with that from NPS samples (50.0% versus 89.7%). In phase-2, 50.2% (95/189) samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from saliva, NPS, or both. The detection rate from saliva was higher compared with that from NPS samples (97.8% versus 78.9%). Of the 85 saliva samples evaluated with both protocols, the detection rate was 100% for samples tested with SalivaAll, and 36.7% with protocol U. The limit of detection with SalivaAll protocol was 20 to 60 copies/mL. The pooled testing approach demonstrated a 95% positive and 100% negative percentage agreement. This protocol for saliva samples results in higher sensitivity compared with NPS samples and breaks the barrier to using pooled saliva for SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Two serious public health challenges have emerged in the current COVID-19 pandemic namely, deficits in SARS-CoV-2 variant monitoring and neglect of other co-circulating respiratory viruses. Additionally, accurate assessment of the evolution, extent, and dynamics of the outbreak is required to understand the transmission of the virus. To address these challenges, we evaluated 533 samples using a high-throughput next-generation sequencing (NGS) respiratory viral panel (RVP) that includes 40 viral pathogens. The performance metrics revealed a PPA, NPA, and accuracy of 95.98%, 85.96%, and 94.4%, respectively. The clade for pangolin lineage B that contains certain distant variants, including P4715L in ORF1ab, Q57H in ORF3a, and S84L in ORF8 covarying with the D614G spike protein mutation, were the most prevalent early in the pandemic in Georgia, USA. The isolates from the same county formed paraphyletic groups, indicating virus transmission between counties. The study demonstrates the clinical and public health utility of the NGS-RVP to identify novel variants that can provide actionable information to prevent or mitigate emerging viral threats and models that provide insights into viral transmission patterns and predict transmission/resurgence of regional outbreaks as well as providing critical information on co-circulating respiratory viruses that might be independent factors contributing to the global disease burden.

Objectives: Limitations of widespread current COVID-19 diagnostic testing exist in both the pre-analytical and analytical stages. To alleviate these limitations, we developed a universal saliva processing protocol (SalivaSTAT) that would enable an extraction-free RT-PCR test using commercially available RT-PCR kits. Methods: We optimized saliva collection devices, heat-shock treatment, and homogenization. Saliva samples (879) previously tested using the FDA-EUA method were reevaluated with the optimized SalivaSTAT protocol using two widely available commercial RT-PCR kits. A five-sample pooling strategy was evaluated as per FDA guidelines. Results: Saliva collection (done without any media) showed performance comparable to that of the FDA-EUA method. The SalivaSTAT protocol was optimized by incubating saliva samples at 95 °C for 30-min and homogenization, followed by RT-PCR assay. The clinical sample evaluation of 630 saliva samples using the SalivaSTAT protocol with PerkinElmer (600-samples) and CDC (30-samples) RT-PCR assay achieved positive (PPA) and negative percent agreements (NPAs) of 95.0% and 100%, respectively. The LoD was established as ~60–180 copies/mL by absolute quantification. Furthermore, a five-sample-pooling evaluation using 250 saliva samples achieved a PPA and NPA of 92% and 100%, respectively. Conclusion: We have optimized an extraction-free RT-PCR assay for saliva samples that demonstrates comparable performance to FDA-EUA assay (Extraction and RT-PCR).

Background: Diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis continues to be a challenge due to the complexity of the causative organism and the wide array of pathologic features seen in this infection. Xpert MTB/RIF can be used on fresh or frozen tissue specimens for diagnosis of tuberculosis with good results. However, there is little data on its use with formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues.Objectives: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the potential utility of Xpert MTB/RIF and to compare its performance to Ziehl-Neelsen staining for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from FFPE tissues using histological features from haematoxylin and eosin staining as the gold standard.Methods: Eighty randomly selected archival FFPE tissues exhibiting histological features of tuberculosis were included in the study. After deparaffinisation and lysis, all the tissue specimens were subjected to the Xpert® MTB/RIF assay. The outcome measures were proportions of positively identified cases by each test.Results: Using histology as the gold standard, the sensitivity of Ziehl-Neelsen staining was 20.3% (95% confidence interval: 12% – 30.8%), and the sensitivity of the Xpert® MTB/RIF assay was 53.2% (95% confidence interval: 41.6% – 64.9%); the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.002). None of the cases tested positive for rifampicin resistance.Conclusion: With prior deparaffinisation and lysis, FFPE tissues are amenable to testing by Xpert® MTB/RIF assay. A validation study to determine the clinical utility, analytical optimisation and cost implications of this assay for FFPE tissues is recommended.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant diversion of human and material resources to COVID-19 diagnostics, to the extent that influenza viruses and co-infection in COVID-19 patients remains undocumented and pose serious public-health consequences. We optimized and validated a highly sensitive RT-PCR based multiplex-assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B viruses in a single-test. This study evaluated clinical specimens (n = 1411), 1019 saliva and 392 nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), tested using two-assays: FDA-EUA approved SARS-CoV-2 assay that targets N and ORF1ab gene, and the PKamp-RT-PCR based assay that targets SARS-CoV-2, influenza viruses A and B. Of the 1019 saliva samples, 17.0% (174/1019) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using either assay. The detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 was higher with the multiplex assay compared to SARS-specific assay [91.9% (160/174) vs. 87.9% (153/174)], respectively. Of the 392 NPS samples, 10.4% (41/392) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using either assay. The detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 was higher with the multiplex assay compared to SARS-specific assay [97.5% (40/41) vs. 92.1% (39/41)], respectively. This study presents clinical validation of a multiplex-PCR assay for testing SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B viruses, using NPS and saliva samples, and demonstrates the feasibility of implementing the assay without disrupting the existing laboratory workflow.