TY - JOUR T1 - Gargle-Direct: Extraction-Free Detection of SARS-CoV-2 using Real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) of Saline Gargle Rinse Samples JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.10.09.20203430 SP - 2020.10.09.20203430 AU - Vijay J. Gadkar AU - David M. Goldfarb AU - Virginia Young AU - Nicole Watson AU - Linda Hoang AU - Tracy Lee AU - Natalie Prystajecky AU - Ghada N. Al-Rawahi AU - Jocelyn A Srigley AU - Peter Tilley Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/13/2020.10.09.20203430.abstract N2 - Background Saline mouth rinse/gargle samples have recently been shown to be a suitable option for swab-independent self-collection for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. We sought to evaluate a simplified process for direct reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-qPCR) testing of this novel sample type and to compare performance with routine RT-qPCR using automated nucleic acid extraction.Methods Clinical saline mouth rinse/gargle samples were subjected to automated nucleic acid extraction (“standard method”), followed by RT-qPCR using three assays including the FDA authorized US-CDC’s N1/N2 assay, which was the reference standard for determining sensitivity/specificity. For extraction-free workflow, an aliquot of each gargle sample underwent viral heat inactivation at 65 °C for 20 minutes followed by RT-qPCR testing, without an intermediate extraction step. An in-house validated RT-qPCR lab developed test (LDT), targeting the SARS-CoV-2’s S/ORF8 genes (SORP triplex assay) and the N1/N2 US-CDC assay was used to evaluate the extraction-free protocol. To improve the analytical sensitivity, we developed a single-tube hemi-nested (STHN) version of the SORP triplex assay.Results A total of 38 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 75 negative saline mouth rinse/gargle samples were included in this evaluation. A 100% concordance in detection rate was obtained between the standard method and the extraction-free approach for the SORP assay. An average increase of +2.63 to +5.74 of the cycle threshold (CT) values was observed for both the SORP and N1/N2 assay when extraction-free was compared between the standard method. The average ΔCT [ΔCT=CT(Direct PCR)-CT(Extracted RNA)], for each of the gene targets were: S (ΔCT= +4.24), ORF8 (ΔCT=+2.63), N1 (ΔCT=+2.74) and N2 (ΔCT=+5.74). The ΔCT for the STHN SORP assay was +1.51 and −2.05 for the S and ORF8 targets respectively, when extracted method was compared to the standard method.Conclusion Our Gargle-Direct SARS-CoV-2 method is operationally simple, minimizes pre-analytical sample processing and is potentially implementable by most molecular diagnostic laboratories. The empirical demonstration of single-tube hemi-nested RT-qPCR, to specifically address and alleviate the widely-acknowledged problem of reduced analytical sensitivity of detection of extraction-free templates, should help diagnostic laboratories in choosing Gargle-Direct protocol for high-throughput testing.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe study was supported by the Peter Wall Institute of Advanced Studies, Vancouver and the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) of British Columbia.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This was approved by the BC Children's and Women's Research Ethics Board (H20-02538).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe authors confirm that the data supporting the finding are available in the article and/or its supplementary material ER -