RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Validation and implementation of a direct RT-qPCR method for rapid screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection by using non-invasive saliva samples
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.11.19.20234245
DO 10.1101/2020.11.19.20234245
A1 Pedro Brotons
A1 Amaresh Perez-Argüello
A1 Cristian Launes
A1 Francesc Torrents
A1 Jesica Saucedo
A1 Joana Claverol
A1 Juan Jose Garcia-Garcia
A1 Gil Rodas
A1 Vicky Fumado
A1 Iolanda Jordan
A1 Eduard Gratacos
A1 Quique Bassat
A1 Carmen Muñoz-Almagro
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/27/2020.11.19.20234245.1.abstract
AB Background There is an urgent need to curb COVID-19 pandemic through early identification of asymptomatic but infectious cases. We aimed to validate and implement an optimised screening method for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA combining use of self-collected raw saliva samples, single-step heat-treated virus inactivation and RNA extraction, and direct RT-qPCR.Methods and findings The study was conducted in Sant Joan de Deu University Hospital (Barcelona, Spain), including: i) analytical validation against standard RT-qPCR in saliva samples; ii) diagnostic validation against standard RT-qPCR using paired saliva-nasopharyngeal samples obtained from asymptomatic teenagers and young and older adults in a youth sports academy; and iii) high throughput pilot screening of asymptomatic health workers and other staff in the study site.The proposed method had comparable analytical performance to standard RT-qPCR in saliva. Diagnostic validation included saliva samples self-collected with supervision by 173 participants during 9-12 weeks and nasopharyngeal samples collected from them. At baseline, all participants (100.0%) were negative for SARS-CoV-2 in both paired saliva-nasopharyngeal samples. In the following weeks, standard RT-qPCR yielded 23 positive results in nasopharyngeal samples whereas paired saliva specimens yielded 22 (95.7%) positive and one inconclusive result.A total of 2,709 participants engaged in the pilot screening, with high rate of participation (83.4% among health workers). Only 17 (0.6%) of saliva samples self-collected by participants in an unsupervised manner were invalid. Saliva was positive in 24 (0.9%) out of 2,692 valid specimens and inconclusive in 27 (1.0%). All 24 saliva-positive participants and 4 with saliva inconclusive results were positive by standard RT-qPCR in nasopharyngeal samples. The pilot showed potential for rapid analytical workflow (up to 384 batched samples can be processed in <2 hours).Conclusion Direct RT-qPCR on self-collected raw saliva is a simple, rapid, and accurate method with potential to be scaled up for enhanced SARS-CoV-2 community-wide screening.Competing Interest StatementCMA reports past grants to her organization from BioMerieux, Roche Diagnostics, Qiagen, BioFire Diagnostics, Alere, and Genomica, outside the submitted work and personal fees from BioMerieux, Roche Diagnostics, and Qiagen for presentations in satellite symposiums outside the submitted work. PB reports personal fees from Roche Diagnostics for a presentation in a satellite symposium outside the submitted work. The rest of authors declare no conflicts of interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Kids Corona Project promoted by SJDH, which received donations from Stavros Niarchos Foundation and Banco Santander. The funding sources had not role in the writing up of the manuscript and in the decision to submit for publication.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:The study was approved by the Ethics Commitee of SJDH prior to the beginning of activities (ref. PIC-240-20). Use of samples collected from participants in the Kids Corona Study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission at Football Club Barcelona Academy La Masia for the present and future studies was covered in the informed consent process and approval of that study (ref. PIC-200-20).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 data that support the findings of this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to [restrictions e.g. their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants].