Improving Detection Efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Testing

Development of rapid nucleic acid testing techniques for common respiratory infectious diseases in the Chinese population

Background: Most respiratory viruses can cause serious lower respiratory diseases at any age. Therefore, timely and accurate identification of respiratory viruses has become even more important. This study focused on the development of rapid nucleic acid testing techniques for common respiratory infectious diseases in the Chinese population. Methods: Multiplex fluorescent quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays were developed and validated for the detection of respiratory pathogens including the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), influenza A virus (FluA), parainfluenza virus (PIV), and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Results: The assays demonstrated high specificity and sensitivity, allowing for the simultaneous detection of multiple pathogens in a single reaction. These techniques offer a rapid and reliable method for screening, diagnosis, and monitoring of respiratory pathogens. Conclusion: The implementation of these techniques might contribute to effective control and prevention measures, leading to improved patient care and public health outcomes in China. Further research and validation are needed to optimize and expand the application of these techniques to a wider range of respiratory pathogens and to enhance their utility in clinical and public health settings.

Review and Meta‐Analysis: SARS‐CoV‐2 and Enveloped Virus Detection in Feces and Wastewater

Detection and quantification of viruses supplies key information on their spread and allows risk assessment for public health. In wastewater, existing detection methods have been focusing on non‐enveloped enteric viruses due to enveloped virus transmission, such as coronaviruses, by the fecal‐oral route being less likely. Since the beginning of the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic, interest and importance of enveloped virus detection in wastewater has increased. Here, quantitative studies on SARS‐CoV‐2 occurrence in feces and raw wastewater and other enveloped viruses via quantitative real‐time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐qPCR) during the early stage of the pandemic until April 2021 are reviewed, including statistical evaluation of the positive detection rate and efficiency throughout the detection process involving concentration, extraction, and amplification stages. Optimized and aligned sampling protocols and concentration methods for enveloped viruses, along with SARS‐CoV‐2 surrogates, in wastewater environments may improve low and variable recovery rates providing increased detection efficiency and comparable data on viral load measured across different studies.

A Simple Clinical Prediction Tool for COVID-19 in Primary Care with Epidemiology: Temperature-Leukocytes-CT Results

Background

Effective identification of patients with suspected COVID-19 is vital for the management. This study aimed to establish a simple clinical prediction model for COVID-19 in primary care.

Material/Methods

We consecutively enrolled 60 confirmed cases and 152 suspected cases with COVID-19 into the study. The training cohort consisted of 30 confirmed and 78 suspected cases, whereas the validation cohort consisted of 30 confirmed and 74 suspected cases. Four clinical variables – epidemiological history (E), body temperature (T), leukocytes count (L), and chest computed tomography (C) – were collected to construct a preliminary prediction model (model A). By integerizing coefficients of model A, a clinical prediction model (model B) was constructed. Finally, the scores of each variable in model B were summed up to build the ETLC score.

Results

The preliminary prediction model A was Logit (Y_A)=2.657X₁+1.153X₂+2.125X₃+2.828X₄–10.771, while the model B was Logit (Y_B)=2.5X₁+1X₂+2X₃+3X₄–10. No significant difference was found between the area under the curve (AUC) of model A (0.920, 95% CI: 0.875–0.953) and model B (0.919, 95% CI: 0.874–0.952) (Z=0.035, P=0.972). When ETLC score was more than or equal to 9.5, the sensitivity and specificity for COVID-19 was 76.7% (46/60) and 90.1% (137/152), respectively, and the positive and negative predictive values were 75.4% (46/61) and 90.7% (137/151), respectively.

Conclusions

The ETLC score is helpful for efficiently identifying patients with suspected COVID-19.

Self-sampling versus health care professional-guided swab collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing

Purpose

To evaluate the diagnostic reliability and practicability of self-collected oropharyngeal swab samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection as self-sampling could enable broader testing availability and reduce both personal protective equipment and potential exposure.

Methods

Hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-infected patients were asked to collect two oropharyngeal swabs (SC-OPS1/2), and an additional oropharyngeal swab was collected by a health care professional (HCP-OPS). SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for samples from 58 participants was performed, with a 48-h delay in half of the self-collected samples (SC-OPS2). The sensitivity, probability of concordance, and interrater reliability were calculated. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess predictive factors. Practicability was evaluated through a questionnaire.

Results

The test sensitivity for HCP-OPS, SC-OPS1, and SC-OPS2 was 88%, 78%, and 77%, respectively. Combining both SC-OPS results increased the estimated sensitivity to 88%. The concordance probability between HCP-OPS and SC-OPS1 was 77.6% and 82.5% between SC-OPS1 and SC-OPS2, respectively. Of the participants, 69% affirmed performing future self-sampling at home, and 34% preferred self-sampling over HCP-guided testing. Participants with both positive HCP-OPS1 and SC-OPS1 indicating no challenges during self-sampling had more differences in viral load levels between HCP-OPS1 and SC-OPS1 than those who indicated challenges. Increasing disease duration and the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG correlated with negative test results in self-collected samples of previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals.

Conclusion

Oropharyngeal self-sampling is an applicable testing approach for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. Self-sampling tends to be more effective in early versus late infection and symptom onset, and the collection of two distinct samples is recommended to maintain high test sensitivity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-021-01614-9.