Swab pooling enables rapid expansion of high-throughput capacity for SARS-CoV-2 community testing.

BACKGROUND: The challenges of rapid upscaling of testing capacity were a major lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic response. The need for process adjustments in high-throughput testing laboratories made sample pooling a challenging option to implement. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate whether pooling samples at source (swab pooling) was as effective as qRT-PCR testing of individuals in identifying cases of SARS-CoV-2 in real-world community testing conditions using the same high-throughput pipeline. METHODS: Two cohorts of 10 (Pool10: 1,030 participants and 103 pools) and 6 (Pool6: 1,284 participants and 214 pools) samples per pool were tested for concordance, sensitivity, specificity, and Ct value differences with individual testing as reference. RESULTS: Swab pooling allowed unmodified application of an existing high-throughput SARS-Cov-2 testing pipeline with only marginal loss of accuracy. For Pool10, concordance was 98.1% (95% Confidence interval: 93.3-99.8%), sensitivity was 95.7% (85.5-99.5%), and specificity was 100.0% (93.6-100.0%). For Pool6, concordance was 97.2% (94.0-99.0%), sensitivity was 97.5% (93.7-99.3%), and specificity was 96.4% (87.7-99.6%). Differences of outcomes measure between pool size were not significant. Most positive individual samples, which were not detected in pools, had very low viral concentration. If only individual samples with a viral concentration > 400 copies/ml (i.e. Ct value < 30) were considered positive, the overall sensitivity of pooling increased to 99.5%. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity by swab pooling and the immediate capability of high-throughput laboratories to implement this method making it an option in planning of rapid upscaling of laboratory capacity for future pandemics.

The 2021 WHO catalogue of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex mutations associated with drug resistance: A genotypic analysis.

Background: Molecular diagnostics are considered the most promising route to achieving rapid, universal drug susceptibility testing for Mycobacterium tuberculosiscomplex (MTBC). We aimed to generate a WHO endorsed catalogue of mutations to serve as a global standard for interpreting molecular information for drug resistance prediction. Methods: A candidate gene approach was used to identify mutations as associated with resistance, or consistent with susceptibility, for 13 WHO endorsed anti-tuberculosis drugs. 38,215 MTBC isolates with paired whole-genome sequencing and phenotypic drug susceptibility testing data were amassed from 45 countries. For each mutation, a contingency table of binary phenotypes and presence or absence of the mutation computed positive predictive value, and Fisher's exact tests generated odds ratios and Benjamini-Hochberg corrected p-values. Mutations were graded as Associated with Resistance if present in at least 5 isolates, if the odds ratio was >1 with a statistically significant corrected p-value, and if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval on the positive predictive value for phenotypic resistance was >25%. A series of expert rules were applied for final confidence grading of each mutation. Findings: 15,667 associations were computed for 13,211 unique mutations linked to one or more drugs. 1,149/15,667 (7·3%) mutations were classified as associated with phenotypic resistance and 107/15,667 (0·7%) were deemed consistent with susceptibility. For rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, fluoroquinolones, and streptomycin, the mutations' pooled sensitivity was >80%. Specificity was over 95% for all drugs except ethionamide (91·4%), moxifloxacin (91·6%) and ethambutol (93·3%). Only two resistance mutations were classified for bedaquiline, delamanid, clofazimine, and linezolid as prevalence of phenotypic resistance was low for these drugs. Interpretation: This first WHO endorsed catalogue of molecular targets for MTBC drug susceptibility testing provides a global standard for resistance interpretation. Its existence should encourage the implementation of molecular diagnostics by National Tuberculosis Programmes. Funding: UNITAID, Wellcome, MRC, BMGF.

Ct threshold values, a proxy for viral load in community SARS-CoV-2 cases, demonstrate wide variation across populations and over time.

Background: Information on SARS-CoV-2 in representative community surveillance is limited, particularly cycle threshold (Ct) values (a proxy for viral load). Methods: We included all positive nose and throat swabs 26 April 2020 to 13 March 2021 from the UK's national COVID-19 Infection Survey, tested by RT-PCR for the N, S, and ORF1ab genes. We investigated predictors of median Ct value using quantile regression. Results: Of 3,312,159 nose and throat swabs, 27,902 (0.83%) were RT-PCR-positive, 10,317 (37%), 11,012 (40%), and 6550 (23%) for 3, 2, or 1 of the N, S, and ORF1ab genes, respectively, with median Ct = 29.2 (~215 copies/ml; IQR Ct = 21.9-32.8, 14-56,400 copies/ml). Independent predictors of lower Cts (i.e. higher viral load) included self-reported symptoms and more genes detected, with at most small effects of sex, ethnicity, and age. Single-gene positives almost invariably had Ct > 30, but Cts varied widely in triple-gene positives, including without symptoms. Population-level Cts changed over time, with declining Ct preceding increasing SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Of 6189 participants with IgG S-antibody tests post-first RT-PCR-positive, 4808 (78%) were ever antibody-positive; Cts were significantly higher in those remaining antibody negative. Conclusions: Marked variation in community SARS-CoV-2 Ct values suggests that they could be a useful epidemiological early-warning indicator. Funding: Department of Health and Social Care, National Institutes of Health Research, Huo Family Foundation, Medical Research Council UK; Wellcome Trust.

Differential occupational risks to healthcare workers from SARS-CoV-2 observed during a prospective observational study.

We conducted voluntary Covid-19 testing programmes for symptomatic and asymptomatic staff at a UK teaching hospital using naso-/oro-pharyngeal PCR testing and immunoassays for IgG antibodies. 1128/10,034 (11.2%) staff had evidence of Covid-19 at some time. Using questionnaire data provided on potential risk-factors, staff with a confirmed household contact were at greatest risk (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.82 [95%CI 3.45-6.72]). Higher rates of Covid-19 were seen in staff working in Covid-19-facing areas (22.6% vs. 8.6% elsewhere) (aOR 2.47 [1.99-3.08]). Controlling for Covid-19-facing status, risks were heterogenous across the hospital, with higher rates in acute medicine (1.52 [1.07-2.16]) and sporadic outbreaks in areas with few or no Covid-19 patients. Covid-19 intensive care unit staff were relatively protected (0.44 [0.28-0.69]), likely by a bundle of PPE-related measures. Positive results were more likely in Black (1.66 [1.25-2.21]) and Asian (1.51 [1.28-1.77]) staff, independent of role or working location, and in porters and cleaners (2.06 [1.34-3.15]).

Can rapid integrated polymerase chain reaction-based diagnostics for gastrointestinal pathogens improve routine hospital infection control practice? A diagnostic study.

BACKGROUND: Every year approximately 5000-9000 patients are admitted to a hospital with diarrhoea, which in up to 90% of cases has a non-infectious cause. As a result, single rooms are 'blocked' by patients with non-infectious diarrhoea, while patients with infectious diarrhoea are still in open bays because of a lack of free side rooms. A rapid test for differentiating infectious from non-infectious diarrhoea could be very beneficial for patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate MassCode multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the simultaneous diagnosis of multiple enteropathogens directly from stool, in terms of sensitivity/specificity to detect four common important enteropathogens: Clostridium difficile, Campylobacter spp., Salmonella spp. and norovirus. DESIGN: A retrospective study of fixed numbers of samples positive for C. difficile (n = 200), Campylobacter spp. (n = 200), Salmonella spp. (n = 100) and norovirus (n = 200) plus samples negative for all these pathogens (n = 300). Samples were sourced from NHS microbiology laboratories in Oxford and Leeds where initial diagnostic testing was performed according to Public Health England methodology. Researchers carrying out MassCode assays were blind to this information. A questionnaire survey, examining current practice for infection control teams and microbiology laboratories managing infectious diarrhoea, was also carried out. SETTING: MassCode assays were carried out at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust. Further multiplex assays, carried out using Luminex, were run on the same set of samples at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. The questionnaire was completed by various NHS trusts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity to detect C. difficile, Campylobacter spp., Salmonella spp., and norovirus. RESULTS: Nucleic acids were extracted from 948 clinical samples using an optimised protocol (200 Campylobacter spp., 199 C. difficile, 60 S. enterica, 199 norovirus and 295 negative samples; some samples contained more than one pathogen). Using the MassCode assay, sensitivities for each organism compared with standard microbiological testing ranged from 43% to 94% and specificities from 95% to 98%, with particularly poor performance for S. enterica. Relatively large numbers of unexpected positives not confirmed with quantitative PCR were also observed, particularly for S. enterica, Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium spp. As the results indicated that S. enterica detection might provide generic challenges to other multiplex assays for gastrointestinal pathogens, the Luminex xTag(®) gastrointestinal assay was also run blinded on the same extracts (937/948 remaining) and on re-extracted samples (839/948 with sufficient material). For Campylobacter spp., C. difficile and norovirus, high sensitivities (> 92%) and specificities (> 96%) were observed. For S. enterica, on the original MassCode/Oxford extracts, Luminex sensitivity compared with standard microbiological testing was 84% [95% confidence interval (CI) 73% to 93%], but this dropped to 46% on a fresh extract, very similar to MassCode, with a corresponding increase in specificity from 92% to 99%. Overall agreement on the per-sample diagnosis compared with combined microbiology plus PCR for the main four/all pathogens was 85.6%/64.7%, 87.0%/82.9% and 89.8%/86.8% for the MassCode assay, Luminex assay/MassCode extract and Luminex assay/fresh extract, respectively. Luminex assay results from fresh extracts implied that 5% of samples did not represent infectious diarrhoea, even though enteropathogens were genuinely present. Managing infectious diarrhoea was a significant burden for infection control teams (taking 21% of their time) and better diagnostics were identified as having major potential benefits for patients. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the Luminex xTag gastrointestinal panel showed similar or superior sensitivity and specificity to the MassCode assay. However, on fresh extracts, this test had low sensitivity to detect a key enteric pathogen, S. enterica; making it an unrealistic option for most microbiology laboratories. Extraction efficiency appears to be a major obstacle for nucleic acid-based tests for this organism, and possibly the whole Enterobacteriaceae family. To improve workflows in service microbiology laboratories, to reduce workload for infection control practitioners, and to improve outcomes for NHS patients, further research on deoxyribonucleic acid-based multiplex gastrointestinal diagnostics is urgently needed. FUNDING: The Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research.