PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Jeremiah J. Minich AU - Farhana Ali AU - Clarisse Marotz AU - Pedro Belda-Ferre AU - Leslie Chiang AU - Justin P. Shaffer AU - Carolina S. Carpenter AU - Daniel McDonald AU - Jack Gilbert AU - Sarah M. Allard AU - Eric E Allen AU - Rob Knight AU - Daniel A. Sweeney AU - Austin D. Swafford TI - Feasibility of using alternative swabs and storage solutions for paired SARS-CoV-2 detection and microbiome analysis in the hospital environment AID - 10.1101/2020.05.12.20073577 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.05.12.20073577 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/14/2020.05.12.20073577.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/14/2020.05.12.20073577.full AB - Background Determining the role of fomites in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential in the hospital setting and will likely be important outside of medical facilities as governments around the world make plans to ease COVID-19 public health restrictions and attempt to safely reopen economies. Expanding COVID-19 testing to include environmental surfaces would ideally be performed with inexpensive swabs that could be transported safely without concern of being a source of new infections. However, CDC-approved clinical-grade sampling supplies and techniques using a polyester swab are expensive, potentially expose laboratory workers to viable virus and prohibit analysis of the microbiome due to the presence of antibiotics in viral transport media (VTM). To this end, we performed a series of experiments comparing the diagnostic yield using five consumer-grade swabs (including plastic and wood shafts and various head materials including cotton, polyester, and foam) and one clinical grade swab for inhibition to RNA. For three of these swabs, we evaluated performance to detect SARS-CoV-2 in twenty intensive care unit (ICU) hospital rooms of patients with 16 COVID-19+. All swabs were placed in 95% ethanol and further evaluated in terms of RNase activity. SARS-CoV-2 was measured both directly from the swab and from the swab eluent.Results Compared to samples collected in VTM, 95% ethanol demonstrated significant inhibition properties against RNases. When extracting directly from the swab head as opposed to the eluent, RNA recovery was approximately 2-4x higher from all six swab types tested as compared to the clinical standard of testing the eluent from a CDC-approved polyester swab. The limit of detection (LoD) of SARs-CoV-2 from floor samples collected using the CGp or TMI swabs was similar or better than the CDC standard, further suggesting that swab type does not impact RNA recovery as measured by SARs-CoV-2. The LoD for TMI was between 0-362.5 viral particles while PE and CGp were both between 725-1450 particles. Lastly microbiome analyses (16S rRNA) of paired samples (e.g., environment to host) collected using different swab types in triplicate indicated that microbial communities were not impacted by swab type but instead driven by the patient and sample type (floor or nasal).Conclusions Compared to using a clinical-grade polyester swab, detection of SARS-CoV-2 from environmental samples collected from ICU rooms of patients with COVID was similar using consumer grade swabs, stored in 95% ethanol. The yield was best from the swab head rather than the eluent and the low level of RNase activity in these samples makes it possible to perform concomitant microbiome analysis.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementFunding was provided by the UC San Diego Center for Microbiome Innovation. No external funding was received.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:Samples were collected under the UC San Diego Institutional Review Board protocol #150275 and #200613.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.Yes16S rRNA sequencing data is available on Qiita (qiita.ucsd.edu) at Study ID 13275. qPCR data will be made available upon reasonable request.