Assessment of Multiplex Digital Droplet RT-PCR as a Diagnostic Tool for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Nasopharyngeal Swabs and Saliva Samples

Development and validation of an automated and high-throughput quadruplex RT-ddPCR assay for the detection of influenza A, influenza B, respiratory syncytial virus, and SARS-CoV-2

The main detection method for viral respiratory infections is reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), but it is susceptible to sample inhibitors and relies on a standard curve and subjective thresholds to quantify nucleic acid targets. However, droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), the third generation of PCR with higher sensitivity and accuracy, is an effective tool for the detection and absolute quantification of respiratory viruses. In this study, we introduced AHQR-ddPCR, which is an automated and high-throughput quadruplex reverse transcription ddPCR assay based on the QX ONE platform for the detection of influenza A, influenza B, respiratory syncytial virus, and SARS-CoV-2 in a single reaction. The AHQR-ddPCR assay had analytical sensitivity as low as 0.65-0.78 copies/μL for four respiratory viruses, and exhibited excellent analytical specificity, intraassay and interassay precision, and a wide linear range for each viral target. The results in clinical samples showed that the assay had good concordance and better diagnostic sensitivity compared to RT-PCR. In short, the highly sensitive and absolutely quantitative AHQR-ddPCR assay has excellent analytical and clinical performance, and the advantage of detecting weakly positive samples, which can effectively reduce false-negative results and is a powerful complement to RT-PCR. In addition, it has great value for virology research and the development of automated molecular assays.

Digital PCR in Virology: Current Applications and Future Perspectives

Digital PCR (dPCR) has been used in the field of virology since its inception. Technological innovations in microfluidics more than a decade ago caused a sharp increase in its use. There is an emerging consensus that dPCR now outperforms quantitative PCR (qPCR) in the basic parameters such as precision, sensitivity, accuracy, repeatability and resistance to inhibitors. These strengths have led to several current applications in quantification, mutation detection and environmental DNA and RNA samples. In high throughput scenarios, such as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, the cost and throughput still significantly hampered the adaption of dPCR. There is much unexplored potential within the multiplexing capabilities of dPCR. This will allow simultaneous multi-target quantification and can also partially alleviate the throughput and cost drawback. In this review, we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of dPCR with a focus on virology applications and we discuss future applications. Finally, we discuss recent evolutions of the technology in the form of real-time dPCR and digital high-resolution melting.

The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection

BACKGROUND

Sample collection is a key driver of accuracy in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Viral load may vary at different anatomical sampling sites and accuracy may be compromised by difficulties obtaining specimens and the expertise of the person taking the sample. It is important to optimise sampling accuracy within cost, safety and accessibility constraints.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the sensitivity of different sampling collection sites and methods for the detection of current SARS-CoV-2 infection with any molecular or antigen-based test.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 22 February 2022. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of symptomatic or asymptomatic people with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing testing. We included studies of any design that compared results from different sample types (anatomical location, operator, collection device) collected from the same participant within a 24-hour period.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Within a sample pair, we defined a reference sample and an index sample collected from the same participant within the same clinical encounter (within 24 hours). Where the sample comparison was different anatomical sites, the reference standard was defined as a nasopharyngeal or combined naso/oropharyngeal sample collected into the same sample container and the index sample as the alternative anatomical site. Where the sample comparison was concerned with differences in the sample collection method from the same site, we defined the reference sample as that closest to standard practice for that sample type. Where the sample pair comparison was concerned with differences in personnel collecting the sample, the more skilled or experienced operator was considered the reference sample. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C checklists, tailored to this review. We present estimates of the difference in the sensitivity (reference sample (%) minus index sample sensitivity (%)) in a pair and as an average across studies for each index sampling method using forest plots and tables. We examined heterogeneity between studies according to population (age, symptom status) and index sample (time post-symptom onset, operator expertise, use of transport medium) characteristics.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 106 studies reporting 154 evaluations and 60,523 sample pair comparisons, of which 11,045 had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ninety evaluations were of saliva samples, 37 nasal, seven oropharyngeal, six gargle, six oral and four combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples. Four evaluations were of the effect of operator expertise on the accuracy of three different sample types. The majority of included evaluations (146) used molecular tests, of which 140 used RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction). Eight evaluations were of nasal samples used with Ag-RDTs (rapid antigen tests). The majority of studies were conducted in Europe (35/106, 33%) or the USA (27%) and conducted in dedicated COVID-19 testing clinics or in ambulatory hospital settings (53%). Targeted screening or contact tracing accounted for only 4% of evaluations. Where reported, the majority of evaluations were of adults (91/154, 59%), 28 (18%) were in mixed populations with only seven (4%) in children. The median prevalence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was 23% (interquartile (IQR) 13%-40%). Risk of bias and applicability assessment were hampered by poor reporting in 77% and 65% of included studies, respectively. Risk of bias was low across all domains in only 3% of evaluations due to inappropriate inclusion or exclusion criteria, unclear recruitment, lack of blinding, nonrandomised sampling order or differences in testing kit within a sample pair. Sixty-eight percent of evaluation cohorts were judged as being at high or unclear applicability concern either due to inflation of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in study populations by selectively including individuals with confirmed PCR-positive samples or because there was insufficient detail to allow replication of sample collection. When used with RT-PCR • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between gargle and nasopharyngeal samples (on average -1 percentage points, 95% CI -5 to +2, based on 6 evaluations, 2138 sample pairs, of which 389 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between saliva collection from the deep throat and nasopharyngeal samples (on average +10 percentage points, 95% CI -1 to +21, based on 2192 sample pairs, of which 730 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was evidence that saliva collection using spitting, drooling or salivating was on average -12 percentage points less sensitive (95% CI -16 to -8, based on 27,253 sample pairs, of which 4636 had SARS-CoV-2) compared to nasopharyngeal samples. We did not find any evidence of a difference in the sensitivity of saliva collected using spitting, drooling or salivating (sensitivity difference: range from -13 percentage points (spit) to -21 percentage points (salivate)). • Nasal samples (anterior and mid-turbinate collection combined) were, on average, 12 percentage points less sensitive compared to nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -17 to -7), based on 9291 sample pairs, of which 1485 had SARS-CoV-2. We did not find any evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples collected from the mid-turbinates (3942 sample pairs) or from the anterior nares (8272 sample pairs). • There was evidence that oropharyngeal samples were, on average, 17 percentage points less sensitive than nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -29 to -5), based on seven evaluations, 2522 sample pairs, of which 511 had SARS-CoV-2. A much smaller volume of evidence was available for combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples and oral samples. Age, symptom status and use of transport media do not appear to affect the sensitivity of saliva samples and nasal samples. When used with Ag-RDTs • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples (sensitivity, on average, 0 percentage points -0.2 to +0.2, based on 3688 sample pairs, of which 535 had SARS-CoV-2).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When used with RT-PCR, there is no evidence for a difference in sensitivity of self-collected gargle or deep-throat saliva samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples collected by healthcare workers when used with RT-PCR. Use of these alternative, self-collected sample types has the potential to reduce cost and discomfort and improve the safety of sampling by reducing risk of transmission from aerosol spread which occurs as a result of coughing and gagging during the nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal sample collection procedure. This may, in turn, improve access to and uptake of testing. Other types of saliva, nasal, oral and oropharyngeal samples are, on average, less sensitive compared to healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples, and it is unlikely that sensitivities of this magnitude would be acceptable for confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection with RT-PCR. When used with Ag-RDTs, there is no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples and healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The implications of this for self-testing are unclear as evaluations did not report whether nasal samples were self-collected or collected by healthcare workers. Further research is needed in asymptomatic individuals, children and in Ag-RDTs, and to investigate the effect of operator expertise on accuracy. Quality assessment of the evidence base underpinning these conclusions was restricted by poor reporting. There is a need for further high-quality studies, adhering to reporting standards for test accuracy studies.

Laboratory-based molecular test alternatives to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

BACKGROUND

Diagnosing people with a SARS-CoV-2 infection played a critical role in managing the COVID-19 pandemic and remains a priority for the transition to long-term management of COVID-19. Initial shortages of extraction and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) reagents impaired the desired upscaling of testing in many countries, which led to the search for alternatives to RNA extraction/purification and RT-PCR testing. Reference standard methods for diagnosing the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection rely primarily on real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Alternatives to RT-PCR could, if sufficiently accurate, have a positive impact by expanding the range of diagnostic tools available for the timely identification of people infected by SARS-CoV-2, access to testing and the use of resources.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of alternative (to RT-PCR assays) laboratory-based molecular tests for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern until 30 September 2020 and the WHO COVID-19 Research Database until 31 October 2022. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of people with suspected or known SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection, and studies evaluating commercially developed laboratory-based molecular tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection considered as alternatives to RT-PCR testing. We also included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2, including RT-PCR tests and established clinical diagnostic criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened studies and resolved disagreements by discussing them with a third author. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We presented sensitivity and specificity, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for each test using paired forest plots and summarised results using average sensitivity and specificity using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. We illustrated the findings per index test category and assay brand compared to the WHO's acceptable sensitivity and specificity threshold for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection using nucleic acid tests.

MAIN RESULTS

We included data from 64 studies reporting 94 cohorts of participants and 105 index test evaluations, with 74,753 samples and 7517 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases. We did not identify any published or preprint reports of accuracy for a considerable number of commercially produced NAAT assays. Most cohorts were judged at unclear or high risk of bias in more than three QUADAS-2 domains. Around half of the cohorts were considered at high risk of selection bias because of recruitment based on COVID status. Three quarters of 94 cohorts were at high risk of bias in the reference standard domain because of reliance on a single RT-PCR result to determine the absence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or were at unclear risk of bias due to a lack of clarity about the time interval between the index test assessment and the reference standard, the number of missing results, or the absence of a participant flow diagram. For index tests categories with four or more evaluations and when summary estimations were possible, we found that: a) For RT-PCR assays designed to omit/adapt RNA extraction/purification, the average sensitivity was 95.1% (95% CI 91.1% to 97.3%), and the average specificity was 99.7% (95% CI 98.5% to 99.9%; based on 27 evaluations, 2834 samples and 1178 SARS-CoV-2 cases); b) For RT-LAMP assays, the average sensitivity was 88.4% (95% CI 83.1% to 92.2%), and the average specificity was 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 24 evaluations, 29,496 samples and 2255 SARS-CoV-2 cases); c) for TMA assays, the average sensitivity was 97.6% (95% CI 95.2% to 98.8%), and the average specificity was 99.4% (95% CI 94.9% to 99.9%; 14 evaluations, 2196 samples and 942 SARS-CoV-2 cases); d) for digital PCR assays, the average sensitivity was 98.5% (95% CI 95.2% to 99.5%), and the average specificity was 91.4% (95% CI 60.4% to 98.7%; five evaluations, 703 samples and 354 SARS-CoV-2 cases); e) for RT-LAMP assays omitting/adapting RNA extraction, the average sensitivity was 73.1% (95% CI 58.4% to 84%), and the average specificity was 100% (95% CI 98% to 100%; 24 evaluations, 14,342 samples and 1502 SARS-CoV-2 cases). Only two index test categories fulfil the WHO-acceptable sensitivity and specificity requirements for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid tests: RT-PCR assays designed to omit/adapt RNA extraction/purification and TMA assays. In addition, WHO-acceptable performance criteria were met for two assays out of 35 when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions. At 5% prevalence using a cohort of 1000 people suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the positive predictive value of RT-PCR assays omitting/adapting RNA extraction/purification will be 94%, with three in 51 positive results being false positives, and around two missed cases. For TMA assays, the positive predictive value of RT-PCR assays will be 89%, with 6 in 55 positive results being false positives, and around one missed case.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Alternative laboratory-based molecular tests aim to enhance testing capacity in different ways, such as reducing the time, steps and resources needed to obtain valid results. Several index test technologies with these potential advantages have not been evaluated or have been assessed by only a few studies of limited methodological quality, so the performance of these kits was undetermined. Only two index test categories with enough evaluations for meta-analysis fulfil the WHO set of acceptable accuracy standards for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid tests: RT-PCR assays designed to omit/adapt RNA extraction/purification and TMA assays. These assays might prove to be suitable alternatives to RT-PCR for identifying people infected by SARS-CoV-2, especially when the alternative would be not having access to testing. However, these findings need to be interpreted and used with caution because of several limitations in the evidence, including reliance on retrospective samples without information about the symptom status of participants and the timing of assessment. No extrapolation of found accuracy data for these two alternatives to any test brands using the same techniques can be made as, for both groups, one test brand with high accuracy was overrepresented with 21/26 and 12/14 included studies, respectively. Although we used a comprehensive search and had broad eligibility criteria to include a wide range of tests that could be alternatives to RT-PCR methods, further research is needed to assess the performance of alternative COVID-19 tests and their role in pandemic management.

Quadruplex Droplet Digital PCR Assay for Screening and Quantification of SARS-CoV-2

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the rapid global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) since early 2020, has highlighted the need for sensitive and reliable diagnostic methods. Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) has demonstrated superior performance over the gold-standard reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) in detecting SARS-CoV-2. In this study, we explored the development of a multiplex ddPCR assay that enables sensitive quantification of SARS-CoV-2, which could be utilized for antiviral screening and the monitoring of COVID-19 patients. We designed a quadruplex ddPCR assay targeting four SARS-CoV-2 genes and evaluated its performance in terms of specificity, sensitivity, linearity, reproducibility, and precision using a two-color ddPCR detection system. The results showed that the quadruplex assay had comparable limits of detection and accuracy to the simplex ddPCR assays. Importantly, the quadruplex assay demonstrated significantly improved performance for samples with low viral loads and ambiguous results compared to the standard qRT-PCR approach. The developed multiplex ddPCR represents a valuable alternative and complementary tool for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 and potentially other pathogens in various application scenarios beyond the current COVID-19 pandemic. The improved sensitivity and reliability of this assay could contribute to more effective disease monitoring and antiviral screening during the ongoing public health crisis.

Advances in understanding immune homeostasis in latent tuberculosis infection

Nearly one-fourth of the global population is infected by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb), and approximately 90%-95% remain asymptomatic as latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI), an estimated 5%-10% of those with latent infections will eventually progress to active tuberculosis (ATB). Although it is widely accepted that LTBI transitioning to ATB results from a disruption of host immune balance and a weakening of protective immune responses, the exact underlying immunological mechanisms that promote this conversion are not well characterized. Thus, it is difficult to accurately predict tuberculosis (TB) progression in advance, leaving the LTBI population as a significant threat to TB prevention and control. This article systematically explores three aspects related to the immunoregulatory mechanisms and translational research about LTBI: (1) the distinct immunocytological characteristics of LTBI and ATB, (2) LTBI diagnostic markers discovery related to host anti-TB immunity and metabolic pathways, and (3) vaccine development focus on LTBI. This article is categorized under: Infectious Diseases > Molecular and Cellular Physiology Infectious Diseases > Genetics/Genomics/Epigenetics Immune System Diseases > Genetics/Genomics/Epigenetics.

Optimization of duplex digital PCR for the measurement of SARS-CoV-2 RNA

Quantitative PCR (qPCR) is the gold standard for detecting nucleic acid sequences specific to the target pathogen. For COVID-19 diagnosis, several molecular assays have been developed. In this study, we present an optimization strategy for the measurement of SARS-CoV-2 RNA via multiplex qPCR and digital PCR (dPCR). Compared to qPCR, both droplet and chip-based dPCR, which are known to be more sensitive and accurate, showed a better resilience to suboptimal assay compositions and cycling conditions following the proposed optimizations. In particular, the formation of heterodimers among assays greatly interfered with qPCR results, but only minimally with dPCR results. In dPCR, existing heterodimers lowered the PCR efficiency, producing a dampened fluorescent signal in positive partitions. This can be corrected by adjusting the PCR cycling conditions, after which dPCR shows the capability of measuring the expected copy number. In addition, we present a process to improve the existing RdRp assay by correcting the primer sequences and matching the melting temperature, ultimately producing highly sensitive and robust assays. The results of this study can reduce the cost and time of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis while increasing accuracy. Furthermore, our results suggest that dPCR is a reliable method for the accurate measurement of nucleic acid targets.

Comparison of RT-ddPCR and RT-qPCR platforms for SARS-CoV-2 detection: Implications for future outbreaks of infectious diseases

The increased frequency of human infectious disease outbreaks caused by RNA viruses worldwide in recent years calls for enhanced public health surveillance for better future preparedness. Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) is emerging as a valuable epidemiological tool for providing timely population-wide surveillance for disease prevention and response complementary to the current clinical surveillance system. Here, we compared the analytical performance and practical applications between predominant molecular detection methods of RT-qPCR and RT-ddPCR on SARS-CoV-2 detection in wastewater surveillance. When pure viral RNA was tested, RT-ddPCR exhibited superior quantification accuracy at higher concentration levels and achieved more sensitive detection with reduced variation at low concentration levels. Furthermore, RT-ddPCR consistently demonstrated more robust and accurate measurement either in the background of the wastewater matrix or with the presence of mismatches in the target regions of the consensus assay. Additionally, by detecting mock variant RNA samples, we found that RT-ddPCR outperformed RT-qPCR in virus genotyping by targeting specific loci with signature mutations in allele-specific (AS) assays, especially at low levels of allele frequencies and concentrations, which increased the possibility for sensitive low-prevalence variant detection in the population. Our study provides insights for detection method selection in the WBE applications for future infectious disease outbreaks.

Droplet digital PCR application for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in air sample

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) may transmit through airborne route particularly when the aerosol particles remain in enclosed spaces with inadequate ventilation. There has been no standard recommended method of determining the virus in air due to limitations in pre-analytical and technical aspects. Furthermore, the presence of low virus loads in air samples could result in false negatives. Our study aims to explore the feasibility of detecting SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid (RNA) in air samples using droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR). Active and passive air sampling was conducted between December 2021 and February 2022 with the presence of COVID-19 confirmed cases in two hospitals and a quarantine center in Klang Valley, Malaysia. SARS-CoV-2 RNA in air was detected and quantified using ddPCR and real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The comparability of two different digital PCR platforms (QX200 and QIAcuity) to RT-PCR were also investigated. Additionally negative staining transmission electron microscopy was performed to visualize virus ultrastructure. Detection rates of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples using ddPCR were higher compared to RT-PCR, which were 15.2% (22/145) and 3.4% (5/145), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of ddPCR was 100 and 87%, respectively. After excluding 17 negative samples (50%) by both QX200 and QIAcuity, 15% samples (5/34) were found to be positive both ddPCR and dPCR. There were 23.5% (8/34) samples that were detected positive by ddPCR but negative by dPCR. In contrast, there were 11.7% (4/34) samples that were detected positive by dPCR but negative by ddPCR. The SARS-CoV-2 detection method by ddPCR is precise and has a high sensitivity for viral RNA detection. It could provide advances in determining low viral titter in air samples to reduce false negative reports, which could complement detection by RT-PCR.

A simple agglutination system for rapid antigen detection from large sample volumes with enhanced sensitivity

Lateral flow assays (LFAs) provide a simple and quick option for diagnosis and are widely adopted for point-of-care or at-home tests. However, their sensitivity is often limited. Most LFAs only allow 50 μL samples while various sample types such as saliva could be collected in much larger volumes. Adapting LFAs to accommodate larger sample volumes can improve assay sensitivity by increasing the number of target analytes available for detection. Here, a simple agglutination system comprising biotinylated antibody (Ab) and streptavidin (SA) is presented. The Ab and SA agglutinate into large aggregates due to multiple biotins per Ab and multiple biotin binding sites per SA. Dynamic light scattering (DLS) measurements showed that the agglutinated aggregate could reach a diameter of over 0.5 μm and over 1.5 μm using poly-SA. Through both experiments and Monte Carlo modeling, we found that high valency and equivalent concentrations of the two aggregating components were critical for successful agglutination. The simple agglutination system enables antigen capture from large sample volumes with biotinylated Ab and a swift transition into aggregates that can be collected via filtration. Combining the agglutination system with conventional immunoassays, an agglutination assay is proposed that enables antigen detection from large sample volumes using an in-house 3D-printed device. As a proof-of-concept, we developed an agglutination assay targeting SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen for COVID-19 diagnosis from saliva. The assay showed a 10-fold sensitivity enhancement when increasing sample volume from 50 μL to 2 mL, with a final limit of detection (LoD) of 10 pg mL-1 (∼250 fM). The assay was further validated in negative saliva spiked with gamma-irradiated SARS-CoV-2 and showed an LoD of 250 genome copies per μL. The proposed agglutination assay can be easily developed from existing LFAs to facilitate the processing of large sample volumes for improved sensitivity.

The Diagnostic Performance of Various Clinical Specimens for the Detection of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of RT-PCR Studies

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic performance of numerous clinical specimens to diagnose COVID-19 through RT-PCR techniques is very important, and the test result outcome is still unclear. This review aimed to analyze the diagnostic performance of clinical samples for COVID-19 detection by RT-PCR through a systematic literature review process.

METHODOLOGY

A compressive literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to November 2022. A snowball search on Google, Google Scholar, Research Gate, and MedRxiv, as well as bibliographic research, was performed to identify any other relevant articles. Observational studies that assessed the clinical usefulness of the RT-PCR technique in different human samples for the detection or screening of COVID-19 among patients or patient samples were considered for this review. The primary outcomes considered were sensitivity and specificity, while parameters such as positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and kappa coefficient were considered secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 85 studies out of 10,213 non-duplicate records were included for the systematic review, of which 69 articles were considered for the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis indicated better pooled sensitivity with the nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) than saliva (91.06% vs. 76.70%) and was comparable with the combined NPS/oropharyngeal swab (OPS; 92%). Nevertheless, specificity was observed to be better with saliva (98.27%) than the combined NPS/OPS (98.08%) and NPS (95.57%). The other parameters were comparable among different samples. The respiratory samples and throat samples showed a promising result relative to other specimens. The sensitivity and specificity of samples such as nasopharyngeal swabs, saliva, combined nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal, respiratory, sputum, broncho aspirate, throat swab, gargle, serum, and the mixed sample were found to be 91.06%, 76.70%, 92.00%, 99.44%, 86%, 96%, 94.4%, 95.3%, 73.63%, and above 98; and 95.57%, 98.27%, 98.08%, 100%, 37%, 100%, 100%, 97.6%, and above 97, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

NPS was observed to have relatively better sensitivity, but not specificity when compared with other clinical specimens. Head-to-head comparisons between the different samples and the time of sample collection are warranted to strengthen this evidence.

SARS-CoV-2 in digital era: Diagnostic techniques and importance of nucleic acid quantification with digital PCRs

Studies related to clinical diagnosis and research of SARS-CoV-2 are important in the current pandemic era. Although molecular biology has emphasised the importance of qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis with nucleic acids in relation to SARS-CoV-2 needs to be clearly emphasised, which can provide perspective for viral dynamic studies of SARS-CoV-2. In this regard, the requirement and utilization of digital PCR in COVID-19 research has substantially increased during the pandemic, necessitating the aggregation of its cardinal applications and future scopes. Hence, this meta-review comprehensively addresses and emphasises the importance of nucleic acid quantification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA with digital PCR (dPCR). Various quantitative techniques of clinical significance like immunological, proteomic and nucleic acid-based diagnosis and quantification, have been comparatively discussed. Furthermore, the core part of the article focusses on the working principle and advantages of digital PCR, along with its applications in COVID-19 research. Several important applications like viral load quantitation, environmental surveillance and assay validation have been extensively investigated and discussed. Certain key future scopes of clinical importance, like mortality prediction, viral/variant-symbiosis, and antiviral studies were also identified, suggesting several possible digital PCR applications in COVID-19 research.

Recent advances in RNA sample preparation techniques for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and gargle

Molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 in gargle and saliva complements the standard analysis of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) specimens. Although gargle and saliva specimens can be readily obtained non-invasively, appropriate collection and processing of gargle and saliva specimens are critical to the accuracy and sensitivity of the overall analytical method. This review highlights challenges and recent advances in the treatment of gargle and saliva samples for subsequent analysis using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and isothermal amplification techniques. Important considerations include appropriate collection of gargle and saliva samples, on-site inactivation of viruses in the sample, preservation of viral RNA, extraction and concentration of viral RNA, removal of substances that inhibit nucleic acid amplification reactions, and the compatibility of sample treatment protocols with the subsequent nucleic acid amplification and detection techniques. The principles and approaches discussed in this review are applicable to molecular detection of other microbial pathogens.

Comparison of Reverse Transcription (RT)-Quantitative PCR and RT-Droplet Digital PCR for Detection of Genomic and Subgenomic SARS-CoV-2 RNA

Most individuals acutely infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exhibit mild symptoms. However, 10 to 20% of those infected develop long-term symptoms, referred to as post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) condition (PCC). One hypothesis is that PCC might be exacerbated by viral persistence in tissue sanctuaries. Therefore, the accurate detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 are not only necessary for viral load monitoring but also crucial for detecting long-term viral persistence and determining whether viral replication is occurring in tissue reservoirs. In this study, the sensitivity and robustness of reverse transcription (RT)-droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and RT-quantitative PCR (qPCR) techniques have been compared for the detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 genomic and subgenomic RNAs from oropharyngeal swabs taken from confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive, SARS-CoV-2-exposed, and nonexposed individuals as well as from samples from mice infected with SARS-CoV-2. Our data demonstrated that both techniques presented equivalent results in the mid- and high-viral-load ranges. Additionally, RT-ddPCR was more sensitive than RT-qPCR in the low-viral-load range, allowing the accurate detection of positive results in individuals exposed to the virus. Overall, these data suggest that RT-ddPCR might be an alternative to RT-qPCR for detecting low viral loads in samples and for assessing viral persistence in samples from individuals with PCC. IMPORTANCE We developed one-step reverse transcription (RT)-droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) protocols to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA and compared them to the gold-standard RT-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) method. RT-ddPCR was more sensitive than RT-qPCR in the low-viral-load range, while both techniques were equivalent in the mid- and high-viral-load ranges. Overall, these results suggest that RT-ddPCR might be a viable alternative to RT-qPCR when it comes to detecting low viral loads in samples, which is a highly relevant issue for determining viral persistence in as-yet-unknown tissue reservoirs in individuals suffering from post-COVID conditions or long COVID.

Advances in droplet digital polymerase chain reaction on microfluidic chips

The PCR technique has been known to the general public since the pandemic outbreak of COVID-19. This technique has progressed through three stages: from simple PCR to real-time fluorescence PCR to digital PCR. Among them, the microfluidic-based droplet digital PCR technique has attracted much attention and has been widely applied due to its advantages of high throughput, high sensitivity, low reagent consumption, low cross-contamination, and absolute quantification ability. In this review, we introduce various designs of microfluidic-based ddPCR developed within the last decade. The microfluidic-based droplet generation methods, thermal cycle strategies, and signal counting approaches are described, and the applications in the fields of single-cell analysis, disease diagnosis, and pathogen detection are introduced. Further, the challenges and prospects of microfluidic-based ddPCR are discussed. We hope that this review can contribute to the further development of the microfluidic-based ddPCR technique.

Droplet Encoding-Pairing Enabled Multiplexed Digital Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification for Simultaneous Quantitative Detection of Multiple Pathogens

Despite the advantages of digital nucleic acid analysis (DNAA) in terms of sensitivity, precision, and resolution, current DNAA methods commonly suffer a limitation in multiplexing capacity. To address this issue, a droplet encoding-pairing enabled DNAA multiplexing strategy is developed, wherein unique tricolor combinations are deployed to index individual primer droplets. The template droplets and primer droplets are sequentially introduced into a microfluidic chip with a calabash-shaped microwell array and are pairwise trapped and merged in the microwells. Pre-merging and post-amplification image analysis with a machine learning algorithm is used to identify, enumerate, and address the droplets. By incorporating the amplification signals with droplet encoding information, simultaneous quantitative detection of multiple targets is achieved. This strategy allows for the establishment of flexible multiplexed DNAA by simply adjusting the primer droplet library. Its flexibility is demonstrated by establishing two multiplexed (8-plex) droplet digital loop-mediated isothermal amplification (mddLAMP) assays for individually detecting lower respiratory tract infection and urinary tract infection causative pathogens. Clinical sample analysis shows that the microbial detection outcomes of the mddLAMP assays are consistent with those of the conventional assay. This DNAA multiplexing strategy can achieve flexible high-order multiplexing on demand, making it a desirable tool for high-content pathogen detection.

Emerging Multiplex Nucleic Acid Diagnostic Tests for Combating COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has drawn attention to the need for fast and accurate diagnostic testing. Concerns from emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and other circulating respiratory viral pathogens further underscore the importance of expanding diagnostic testing to multiplex detection, as single-plex diagnostic testing may fail to detect emerging variants and other viruses, while sequencing can be too slow and too expensive as a diagnostic tool. As a result, there have been significant advances in multiplex nucleic-acid-based virus diagnostic testing, creating a need for a timely review. This review first introduces frequent nucleic acid targets for multiplex virus diagnostic tests, then proceeds to a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of multiplex assays that incorporate various detection reactions and readout modalities. The performances, advantages, and disadvantages of these assays are discussed, followed by highlights of platforms that are amenable for point-of-care use. Finally, this review points out the remaining technical challenges and shares perspectives on future research and development. By examining the state of the art and synthesizing existing development in multiplex nucleic acid diagnostic tests, this review can provide a useful resource for facilitating future research and ultimately combating COVID-19.

Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

This scoping review aims to summarize the diagnostic value of saliva assessed from current studies that (1) compare its performance in reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing to nasopharyngeal swabs, (2) evaluate its performance in rapid and point-of-care COVID-19 diagnostic tests, and (3) explore its use as a specimen for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was performed on the following databases: Medline and Embase (Ovid), World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Global Health (Ovid) from January 2019 to September 2021. Of the 657 publications identified from the searches, n = 146 articles were included in the final scoping review.

RESULTS

Our findings showcase that salivary samples exceed nasopharyngeal swabs in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing in several studies. A select number of rapid antigen and point-of-care tests from the literature were also identified capable of high detection rates using saliva. Moreover, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have been shown to be detectable in saliva through biochemical assays.

CONCLUSION

We highlight the potential of saliva as an all-rounded specimen in detecting SARS-CoV-2. However, future large-scale clinical studies will be needed to support its widespread use as a non-invasive clinical specimen for COVID-19 testing.

Digital PCR Applications in the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 Era: a Roadmap for Future Outbreaks

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has led to a global public health disaster. The current gold standard for the diagnosis of infected patients is real-time reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). As effective as this method may be, it is subject to false-negative and -positive results, affecting its precision, especially for the detection of low viral loads in samples. In contrast, digital PCR (dPCR), the third generation of PCR, has been shown to be more effective than the gold standard, RT-qPCR, in detecting low viral loads in samples. In this review article, we selected publications to show the broad-spectrum applications of dPCR, including the development of assays and reference standards, environmental monitoring, mutation detection, and clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, while comparing it analytically to the gold standard, RT-qPCR. In summary, it is evident that the specificity, sensitivity, reproducibility, and detection limits of RT-dPCR are generally unaffected by common factors that may affect RT-qPCR. As this is the first time that dPCR is being tested in an outbreak of such a magnitude, knowledge of its applications will help chart a course for future diagnosis and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks.

Development and Analytical Validation of a One-Step Five-Plex RT-ddPCR Assay for the Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 Transcripts in Clinical Samples

Highly sensitive methodologies for SARS-CoV-2 detection are essential for the control of COVID-19 pandemic. We developed and analytically validated a highly sensitive and specific five-plex one-step RT-ddPCR assay for SARS-CoV-2. We first designed in-silico novel primers and probes for the simultaneous absolute quantification of three different regions of the nucleoprotein (N) gene of SARS-CoV-2 (N1, N2, N3), a synthetic RNA as an external control (RNA-EC), and Beta-2-Microglobulin (B2M) as an endogenous RNA internal control (RNA-IC). The developed assay was analytically validated using synthetic DNA and RNA calibrator standards and then was applied to 100 clinical specimens previously analyzed with a commercially available CE-IVD RT-qPCR assay. The analytical validation of the developed assay resulted in very good performance characteristics in terms of analytical sensitivity, linearity, analytical specificity, and reproducibility and recovery rates even at very low viral concentrations. The simultaneous absolute quantification of the RNA-EC and RNA-IC provides the necessary metrics for quality control assessment. Direct comparison of the developed one-step five-plex RT-ddPCR assay with a CE-IVD RT-qPCR kit revealed a very high concordance and a higher sensitivity [concordance: 99/100 (99.0%, Spearman's correlation coefficient: -0.850, p < 0.001)]. The developed assay is highly sensitive, specific, and reproducible and has a broad linear dynamic range, providing absolute quantification of SARS-COV-2 transcripts. The inclusion of two RNA quality controls, an external and an internal, is highly important for standardization of SARS-COV-2 molecular testing in clinical and wastewater samples.

Sponge Whirl-Pak Sampling Method and Droplet Digital RT-PCR Assay for Monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 on Surfaces in Public and Working Environments

The SARS-CoV-2 can spread directly via saliva, respiratory aerosols and droplets, and indirectly by contact through contaminated objects and/or surfaces and by air. In the context of COVID-19 fomites can be an important vehicle of virus transmission and contribute to infection risk in public environments. The aim of the study was to analyze through surface sampling (sponge method) the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in public and working environments, in order to evaluate the risk for virus transmission. Seventy-seven environmental samples were taken using sterile sponges in 17 animal farms, 4 public transport buses, 1 supermarket and 1 hotel receptive structure. Furthermore, 246 and 93 swab samples were taken in the farms from animals and from workers, respectively. SARS-CoV-2 detection was conducted by real-time RT-PCR and by digital droplet RT-PCR (dd RT-PCR) using RdRp, gene E and gene N as targets. None of the human and animal swab samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2, while detection was achieved in 20 of the 77 sponge samples (26%) using dd RT-PCR. Traces of the RdRp gene, gene E and gene N were found in 17/77 samples (22%, average concentration 31.2 g.c./cm², range 5.6 to 132 g.c./cm²), 8/77 samples (10%, average concentration 15.1 g.c./cm², range 6 to 36 g.c./cm²), and in 1/77 (1%, concentration 7.2 g.c./cm²). Higher detection rates were associated with sampling in animal farms and on public transport buses (32% and 30%) compared to the supermarket (21%) and the hotel (no detection). The result of the study suggests that the risk of contamination of surfaces with SARS-CoV-2 increases in environments in which sanitation strategies are not suitable and/or in highly frequented locations, such as public transportation. Considering the analytical methods, the dd RT-PCR was the only approach achieving detection of SARS-CoV-2 traces in environmental samples. Thus, dd RT-PCR emerges as a reliable tool for sensitive SARS-CoV-2 detection.

Modelling RT-qPCR cycle-threshold using digital PCR data for implementing SARS-CoV-2 viral load studies

OBJECTIVES

To exploit the features of digital PCR for implementing SARS-CoV-2 observational studies by reliably including the viral load factor expressed as copies/μL.

METHODS

A small cohort of 51 Covid-19 positive samples was assessed by both RT-qPCR and digital PCR assays. A linear regression model was built using a training subset, and its accuracy was assessed in the remaining evaluation subset. The model was then used to convert the stored cycle threshold values of a large dataset of 6208 diagnostic samples into copies/μL of SARS-CoV-2. The calculated viral load was used for a single cohort retrospective study. Finally, the cohort was randomly divided into a training set (n = 3095) and an evaluation set (n = 3113) to establish a logistic regression model for predicting case-fatality and to assess its accuracy.

RESULTS

The model for converting the Ct values into copies/μL was suitably accurate. The calculated viral load over time in the cohort of Covid-19 positive samples showed very low viral loads during the summer inter-epidemic waves in Italy. The calculated viral load along with gender and age allowed building a predictive model of case-fatality probability which showed high specificity (99.0%) and low sensitivity (21.7%) at the optimal threshold which varied by modifying the threshold (i.e. 75% sensitivity and 83.7% specificity). Alternative models including categorised cVL or raw cycle thresholds obtained by the same diagnostic method also gave the same performance.

CONCLUSION

The modelling of the cycle threshold values using digital PCR had the potential of fostering studies addressing issues regarding Sars-CoV-2; furthermore, it may allow setting up predictive tools capable of early identifying those patients at high risk of case-fatality already at diagnosis, irrespective of the diagnostic RT-qPCR platform in use. Depending upon the epidemiological situation, public health authority policies/aims, the resources available and the thresholds used, adequate sensitivity could be achieved with acceptable low specificity.

Challenges and emerging perspectives of an international SARS-CoV-2 epidemiological surveillance in wastewater

SARS-CoV-2 is a new type of coronavirus capable to infect humans and cause the severe acute respiratory syndrome COVID-19, a disease that has been causing huge impacts across the Earth. COVID-19 patients, including mild, pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic cases, were often seen to contain infectious fragments of SARS-CoV-2 in feces and urine samples. Therefore, studies to detect the new coronavirus in wastewater, which collect and concentrate human excreta, have been extremely useful as a viral tracking tool in communities. This type of monitoring, in addition to serve as a non-invasive early warning of COVID-19 outbreaks, would provide better predictions about the SARS-CoV-2 spread and strongly contribute to maintenance the global health. Although current methods to detect viruses in wastewater, based on molecular RT-PCR and RT-qPCR techniques, were considered as reliable and provided accurate qualitative and quantitative results, they have been facing considerable challenges concerning the SARS-CoV-2 surveillance. In this review, the methods used to detect the SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater and the challenges to implement an international viral monitoring network were described. The article also addressed the emerging perspectives associated with the SARS-CoV-2 epidemiological surveillance in this environment and the importance of a worldwide collaboration to generate and disseminate the detection results.

Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Value of Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR) in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review

Accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing the global pandemic of COVID-19, is essential for disease surveillance and control. Quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) is considered the reference standard test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 by the World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, its limitations are a prompt for a more accurate assay to detect SARS-CoV-2, quantify its levels, and assess the prognosis. This article aimed to systematically review the literature and assess the diagnostic performance of droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), also to evaluate its potential role in prognosis and management of COVID-19 patients. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to identify relevant articles published until 13 July 2021. An additional PubMed search was performed on 21 October 2021. Data from the 39 eligible studies were extracted and an overall 3651 samples from 2825 patients and 145 controls were used for our qualitative analysis. Most studies reported ddPCR was more accurate than RT-qPCR in detecting and quantifying SARS-CoV-2 levels, especially in patients with low viral loads. ddPCR was also found highly effective in quantifying SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia levels in hospitalized patients, monitoring their disease course, and predicting their response to therapy. These findings suggest ddPCR could serve as a complement or alternative SARS-CoV-2 tool with emerging diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic value, especially in hospital settings. Additional research is still needed to standardize its laboratory protocols, also to accurately assess its role in monitoring COVID-19 therapy response and in identifying SARS-CoV-2 emerging variants.

Diagnostic performances of common nucleic acid tests for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals and clinics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

An optimised standard experimental setup across different hospitals is urgently needed to ensure consistency in nucleic acid test results for SARS-CoV-2 detection. A standard comparison across different nucleic acid tests and their optimal experimental setups is not present. We assessed the performance of three common nucleic acid tests, namely digital PCR (dPCR), quantitative PCR (qPCR), and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), to detect SARS-CoV-2 in clinical settings.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis we compared sensitivity and specificity of qPCR, dPCR, and LAMP and their performances when different experimental setups (namely specimen type used, use of RNA extraction, primer-probe sets, and RNA extraction methods) are applied. We searched PubMed, BioRxiv, MedRxiv, SciFinder, and ScienceDirect for studies and preprints published between Feb 29 and Dec 15, 2020. Included dPCR, qPCR, and LAMP studies using any type of human specimens should report the number of true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative cases with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)-approved PCR assays as the comparator. Studies with a sample size of less than ten, descriptive studies, case studies, reviews, and duplicated studies were excluded. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were computed from the true and false positive and negative cases using Reitsma's bivariate random-effects and bivariate latent class models. Test performance reported in area under the curve (AUC) of the three nucleic acid tests was further compared by pooling studies with similar experimental setups (eg, tests that used RNA extracted pharyngeal swabs but with either the open reading frame 1ab or the N primer). Heterogeneity was assessed and reported in I 2 and τ2.

FINDINGS

Our search identified 1277 studies of which we included 66 studies (11 dPCR, 32 qPCR, and 23 LAMP) with 15 017 clinical samples in total in our systematic review and 52 studies in our meta-analysis. dPCR had the highest pooled diagnostic sensitivity (94·1%, 95% CI 88·9-96·6, by Reitsma's model and 95·8%, 54·9-100·0, by latent class model), followed by qPCR (92·7%, 88·3-95·6, and 93·4%, 60·9-99·9) and LAMP (83·3%, 76·9-88·2, and 86·2%, 20·7-99·9), using EUA-approved PCR kits as the reference standard. LAMP was the most specific with a pooled estimate of 96·3% (93·8-97·8) by Reitsma's model and 94·3% (49·1-100·0) by latent class model, followed by qPCR (92·9%, 87·2-96·2, and 93·1%, 47·1-100·0) and dPCR (78·5%, 57·4-90·8, and 73·8%, 0·9-100·0). The overall heterogeneity was I 2 0·5% (τ2 2·79) for dPCR studies, 0% (4·60) for qPCR studies, and 0% (3·96) for LAMP studies. AUCs of the three nucleic acid tests were the highest and differed the least between tests (ie, AUC>0·98 for all tests) when performed with RNA extracted pharyngeal swabs using SARS-CoV-2 open reading frame 1ab primer.

INTERPRETATION

All three nucleic acid tests consistently perform better with pharyngeal swabs using SARS-CoV-2 open reading frame 1ab primer with RNA extraction. dPCR was shown to be the most sensitive, followed by qPCR and LAMP. However, their accuracy does not differ significantly. Instead, accuracy depends on specific experimental conditions, implying that more efforts should be directed to optimising the experimental setups for the nucleic acid tests. Hence, our results could be a reference for optimising and establishing a standard nucleic acid test protocol that is applicable in laboratories worldwide.

FUNDING

University Grants Committee and The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

SARS-CoV-2 detection in wastewater using multiplex quantitative PCR

A multiplex reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR)-based method was designed for the simultaneous detection of different SARS-CoV-2 genes. In this study, we used three target genes encoding for the nucleocapsid 1 and 3 (N1, N3), and the spike (S) proteins, all commonly used in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in human and environmental samples. The performance of the multiplex assay, compared to the single assay was assessed for the standard calibration curve, required for absolute quantification, and then, for the real environmental samples to detect SARS-CoV-2. For this latter, four environmental samples were collected at a local wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The results showed that the cycle threshold (Ct) values of the multiplex were comparable to the values obtained by the singleplex PCR. The amplification of the three target genes indicated the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the four water samples with an increasing trend in February and these results were confirmed in the multiplex approach, showing the robustness of this method and its applicability for the relative abundance analysis among the samples. Overall, both the laboratory and field work results demonstrated that the multiplex PCR assay developed in this study could provide a method for SARS-CoV-2 detection as robust as the single qPCR, but faster and cost-effective, reducing by three times the number of reactions, and consequently the handling time and reagents.

SARS-CoV-2 Subgenomic RNAs: Characterization, Utility, and Perspectives

SARS-CoV-2, the etiologic agent at the root of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, harbors a large RNA genome from which a tiered ensemble of subgenomic RNAs (sgRNAs) is generated. Comprehensive definition and investigation of these RNA products are important for understanding SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis. This review summarizes the recent progress on SARS-CoV-2 sgRNA identification, characterization, and application as a viral replication marker. The significance of these findings and potential future research areas of interest are discussed.

Sensitive detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva

Saliva has significant advantages as a test medium for detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients, such as ease of collection, minimal requirement of supplies and trained personnel, and safety. Comprehensive validation in a large cohort of prospectively collected specimens with unknown SARS-CoV-2 status should be performed to evaluate the potential and limitations of saliva-based testing. We developed a saliva-based testing pipeline for detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids using real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) readouts, and measured samples from 137 outpatients tested at a curbside testing facility and 29 inpatients hospitalized for COVID-19. These measurements were compared to the nasal swab results for each patient performed by a certified microbiology laboratory. We found that our saliva testing positively detects 100% (RT-PCR) and 93.75% (ddPCR) of curbside patients that were identified as SARS-CoV-2 positive by the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) certified nasal swab testing assay. Quantification of viral loads by ddPCR revealed an extremely wide range, with 1 million-fold difference between individual patients. Our results demonstrate for both community screening and hospital settings that saliva testing reliability is on par with that of the nasal swabs in detecting infected cases, and has potential for higher sensitivity when combined with ddPCR in detecting low-abundance viral loads that evade traditional testing methods.

Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Rapid review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients and screening of populations for SARS-CoV-2 infection require access to straightforward, low-cost and high-throughput testing. The recommended nasopharyngeal swab tests are limited by the need of trained professionals and specific consumables and this procedure is poorly accepted as a screening method In contrast, saliva sampling can be self-administered.

METHODS

In order to compare saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, we designed a meta-analysis searching in PubMed up to December 29th, 2020 with the key words "(SARS-CoV-2 OR COVID-19 OR COVID19) AND (salivary OR saliva OR oral fluid)) NOT (review[Publication Type]) NOT (PrePrint[Publication Type])" applying the following criteria: records published in peer reviewed scientific journals, in English, with at least 15 nasopharyngeal/orapharyngeal swabs and saliva paired samples tested by RT-PCR, studies with available raw data including numbers of positive and negative tests with the two sampling methods. For all studies, concordance and sensitivity were calculated and then pooled in a random-effects model.

FINDINGS

A total of 377 studies were retrieved, of which 50 were eligible, reporting on 16,473 pairs of nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal and saliva samples. Meta-analysis showed high concordance, 92.5% (95%CI: 89.5-94.7), across studies and pooled sensitivities of 86.5% (95%CI: 83.4-89.1) and 92.0% (95%CI: 89.1-94.2) from saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs respectively. Heterogeneity across studies was 72.0% for saliva and 85.0% for nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs.

INTERPRETATION

Our meta-analysis strongly suggests that saliva could be used for frequent testing of COVID-19 patients and "en masse" screening of populations.