PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Thompson, Jamie L
AU  - Velasco, Angela Downie Ruiz
AU  - Cardall, Alice
AU  - Tarbox, Rebecca
AU  - Richardson, Jaineeta
AU  - Clarke, Gemma
AU  - Lister, Michelle
AU  - Howson-Wells, Hannah C
AU  - Fleming, Vicki M
AU  - Khakh, Manjinder
AU  - Sloan, Tim
AU  - Duckworth, Nichola
AU  - Walsh, Sarah
AU  - Denning, Chris
AU  - McClure, C. Patrick
AU  - Benest, Andrew V
AU  - Seedhouse, Claire H
TI  - Comparative effects of viral transport medium heat inactivation upon downstream SARS-CoV-2 detection in patient samples
AID  - 10.1101/2020.07.30.20164988
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.07.30.20164988
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/01/2020.07.30.20164988.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/01/2020.07.30.20164988.full
AB  - The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in 2020 is testing economic resilience and surge capacity of healthcare providers worldwide. At time of writing, positive detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus remains the only method for diagnosing COVID-19 infection. Rapid upscaling of national SARS-CoV-2 genome testing presented challenges: 1) Unpredictable supply chains of reagents and kits for virus inactivation, RNA extraction and PCR-detection of viral genomes 2) Rapid time to result of <24 hours is required in order to facilitate timely infection control measures. We evaluated whether alternative commercially available kits provided sensitivity and accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 genome detection comparable to those used by regional National Healthcare Services (NHS), and asked if detection was altered by heat inactivation, an approach for rapid one-step viral inactivation and RNA extraction without chemicals or kits. Using purified RNA, we found the CerTest VIASURE kit to be comparable to Altona RealStar system currently in use, and further showed that both diagnostic kits performed similarly in the BioRad CFX96 and Roche LightCycler 480 II machines. Additionally, both kits were comparable to a third alternative using a combination of Quantabio qScript 1-step qRT-PCR mix and CDC-accredited N1 and N2 primer/probes when looking specifically at borderline samples. Importantly, when using the kits in an extraction-free protocol, following heat inactivation, we saw differing results, with the combined Quantabio-CDC assay showing superior accuracy and sensitivity. In particular, detection using the CDC N2 probe following the extraction-free protocol was highly correlated to results generated with the same probe following RNA extraction and reported clinically (n=127; R2=0.9259). Our results demonstrate that sample treatment can greatly affect the downstream performance of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic kits, with varying impact depending on the kit. We also showed that one-step heat inactivation methods could reduce time from swab receipt to outcome of test result. Combined, these findings present alternatives to the protocols in use and can serve to alleviate any arising supply chain issues at different points in the workflow, whilst accelerating testing, and reducing cost and environmental impact.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementEPSRC grant EP/N006615/1British Heart Foundation (PG/18/31/33759)Royal Society (RGS\R1\191221) Childrens Cancer and Leukaemia Group Little Princess Trust (CCLGA 2019 2)Cancer Research UK (C11392/A27985)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:NAAll 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.YesNA