Abstract
COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted the healthcare and economy on a global scale. It is widely recognized that mass testing is an efficient way to contain the infection spread as well as the development of informed policies for disease management. However, the current COVID-19 worldwide infection rates increased demand in the rapid and reliable screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
We compared the performance of qRT-PCR in direct heat-inactivated, heat-inactivated/pelleted samples against RNA in a group of 74 subjects (44 positive and 30 negative). In addition, we compared the sensitivity of heat-inactivated/pelleted in another group of 196 COVID-19 positive samples.
Our study suggests that swab sample heat-inactivation and pelleting show higher accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 detection PCR assay compared to heat-inactivation only (89% vs 83% of the detection in RNA). The accuracy of detection using direct samples varied depending on the sample transport and storage media as well as the concentration of viral particles.
Our study suggests that purified RNA provides more accurate results, however, direct qRT-PCR may help to significantly increase testing capacity. Switching to the direct sample testing is justified if the number of tests is doubled at least.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Institute of Molecular Biology NAS RA (IRB#: 00004079).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
We added information about the "Instrumental Access 2017" program in the Acknowledgments section of the manuscript since the majority of equipment for this study was obtained through the mentioned program.
Data Availability
N/A
