Evaluating User Experience and DNA Yield from Self-Collection Devices.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic emphasized an urgent need for devices used in the self-collection of biospecimens in an evolving patient care system. The mailing of biospecimen self-collection kits to patients, with samples returned via mail, provides a more convenient testing regimen, but could also impart patient sampling variabilities. User compliance with device directions is central to downstream testing of collected biospecimens and clear instructions are central to this goal. METHODS: Here, we performed an evaluation of 10 oral DNA collection devices involving either swab or saliva self-collection and analyzed ease of use and comfort level with a device, as well as DNA recovery quantity/quality and sample stability. RESULTS: We show that while these DNA quality/quantity metrics are comparable between devices, users prefer direct saliva collection over swab-based devices. CONCLUSIONS: This information is useful in guiding future experiments including their use in human RNA, microbial, or viral sample collection/recovery and their use in clinical testing.

SARS-CoV-2 emergency use authorization published sensitivity differences do not correlate with positivity rate in a hospital/reference laboratory setting.

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic skyrocketing demand for testing in the United States, coupled with supply chain issues, necessitated the use of multiple SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing platforms at many health centers. At our institution these platforms consisted of 8 ordered services for sample triage, using 9 emergency use authorized (EUA) SARS-CoV-2 RNA nucleic acid amplification tests resulting in 10 possible ordered service/EAU combinations. Here we review the results of the first ∼2.9 million samples tested and note the variability in positivity rates. We conclude that differences in reported limit of detection did not translate to differences in positivity rate or show correlation to discordant results observed. This highlights the importance of balancing patient testing capacity needs with the desire to have more sensitive tests.

Authorized SARS-CoV-2 molecular methods show wide variability in the limit of detection.

On February 29th, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued the first Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for a SARS-CoV-2 assay outside of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As of May 3rd, 2021, 289 total EUAs have been granted. Like influenza, there is no standard for defining limit of detection (LoD), but rather guidance that analytical sensitivity/LoD be established as the level that gives a 95% detection rate in at least 20 replicates. Here we compare the performance characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 tests receiving EUA by standardizing sensitivity to a common unit of measure and assess the variability in LoD between tests. Additionally, we looked at factors that may impact sensitivities due to lack of standardization of the test development process and compare results for a standardized reference panel for comparative analysis within a subset of EUA tests offered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.