End-to-end system for rapid and sensitive early-detection of SARS-CoV-2 for resource-poor and field-test environments using a $51 lab-in-a-backpack.

COVID-19 has exposed stark inequalities between resource-rich and resource-poor countries. International UN- and WHO-led efforts, such as COVAX, have provided SARS-CoV-2 vaccines but half of African countries have less than 2% vaccinated in their population, and only 15 have reached 10% by October 2021, further disadvantaging local economic recovery. Key for this implementation and preventing further mutation and spread is the frequency of voluntary [asymptomatic] testing. It is limited by expensive PCR and LAMP tests, uncomfortable probes deep in the throat or nose, and the availability of hardware to administer in remote locations. There is an urgent need for an inexpensive "end-to-end" system to deliver sensitive and reliable, non-invasive tests in resource-poor and field-test conditions. We introduce a non-invasive saliva-based LAMP colorimetric test kit and a $51 lab-in-a-backpack system that detects as few as 4 viral RNA copies per µL. It consists of eight chemicals, a thermometer, a thermos bottle, two micropipettes and a 1000-4000 rcf electronically operated centrifuge made from recycled computer hard drives (CentriDrive). The centrifuge includes a 3D-printed rotor and a 12 V rechargeable Li-ion battery, and its 12 V standard also allows wiring directly to automobile batteries, to enable field-use of this and other tests in low infrastructure settings. The test takes 90 minutes to process 6 samples and has reagent costs of $3.5 per sample. The non-invasive nature of saliva testing would allow higher penetration of testing and wider adoption of the test across cultures and settings (including refugee camps and disaster zones). The attached graphical procedure would make the test suitable for self-testing at home, performing it in the field, or in mobile testing centers by minimally trained staff.

Routine, Cost-Effective SARS-CoV-2 Surveillance Testing Using Pooled Saliva Limits Viral Spread on a Residential College Campus.

Routine testing for SARS-CoV-2 is rare for institutes of higher education due to prohibitive costs and supply chain delays. During spring 2021, we routinely tested all residential students 1 to 2 times per week using pooled, RNA-extraction-free, reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) testing of saliva at a cost of $0.43/sample with same-day results. The limit of detection was 500 copies/ml on individual samples, and analysis indicates 1,000 and 2,500 copies/ml in pools of 5 and 10, respectively, which is orders of magnitude more sensitive than rapid antigen tests. Importantly, saliva testing flagged 83% of semester positives (43,884 tests administered) and was 95.6% concordant with nasopharyngeal diagnostic results (69.0% concordant on the first test when the nucleocapsid gene (N1) cycle threshold (CT) value was >30). Moreover, testing reduced weekly cases by 59.9% in the spring despite far looser restrictions, allowing for more normalcy while eliminating outbreaks. We also coupled our testing with a survey to clarify symptoms and transmissibility among college-age students. While only 8.5% remained asymptomatic throughout, symptoms were disparate and often cold-like (e.g., only 37.3% developed a fever), highlighting the difficulty with relying on symptom monitoring among this demographic. Based on reported symptom progression, we estimate that we removed 348 days of infectious individuals by routine testing. Interestingly, viral load (CT value) at the time of testing did not affect transmissibility (R2 = 0.0085), though those experiencing noticeable symptoms at the time of testing were more likely to spread the virus to close contacts (31.6% versus 14.3%). Together, our findings support routine testing for reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Implementation of cost- and resource-efficient approaches should receive strong consideration in communities that lack herd immunity. IMPORTANCE This study highlights the utility of routine testing for SARS-CoV-2 using pooled saliva while maintaining high sensitivity of detection (under 2,500 copies/ml) and rapid turnaround of high volume (up to 930 samples in 8 h by two technicians and one quantitative PCR [qPCR] machine). This pooled approach allowed us to test all residential students 1 to 2 times per week on our college campus during the spring of 2021 and flagged 83% of our semester positives. Most students were asymptomatic or presented with symptoms mirroring common colds at the time of testing, allowing for removal of infectious individuals before they otherwise would have sought testing. To our knowledge, the total per-sample consumable cost of $0.43 is the lowest to date. With many communities still lagging in vaccination rates, routine testing that is cost-efficient highlights the capacity of the laboratory's role in controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

A simple pooling salivary test for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis: A Columbus' egg?

Saliva is an appropriate specimen for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnosis. The possibility of pooling samples of saliva, using non-invasive bibula strips for sampling, was explored employing Bovine coronavirus (BCoV) spiked saliva. In laboratory, up to 30 saliva-soaked strips were pooled in a single tube with 2 mL of medium. After quick adsorption with the medium and vortexing, the liquid was collected and tested with a quantitative molecular assay to quantify viral RNA genome copies. On testing of single and pooled strips, the difference between the median threshold cycles (Ct) value of test performed on the single positive saliva sample and the median Ct value obtained on the pool of 30 strips, was 3.21 cycles. Saliva pooling with bibula strips could allow monitoring of COVID-19 on a large scale, reducing costs for the health bodies in terms of medical material and skilled personnel. Finally, saliva sampling is noninvasive and less traumatic than nasopharyngeal swabs and can be self-collected.

A rapid and reliable liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry method for SARS-CoV-2 analysis from gargle solutions and saliva.

We describe a rapid liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method for the direct detection and quantitation of SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein in gargle solutions and saliva. The method is based on a multiple-reaction monitoring (MRM) mass spectrometry approach with a total cycle time of 5 min per analysis and allows the detection and accurate quantitation of SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein as low as 500 amol/µL. We improved the sample preparation protocol of our recent piloting SARS-CoV-2 LC-MS study regarding sensitivity, reproducibility, and compatibility with a complementary reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) analysis of the same sample. The aim of this work is to promote diagnostic tools that allow identifying and monitoring SARS-CoV-2 infections by LC-MS/MS methods in a routine clinical environment.

Development of an alternative saliva test for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 using TRIzol: Adapting to countries with lower incomes looking for a large-scale detection program.

The use of saliva for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 has shown to be a good alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), since it permits self-collection, avoids the exposure of healthy persons to infected patients, reduces waiting times, eliminates the need of personal protective equipment and is non-invasive. Yet current saliva testing is still expensive due to the need of specialized tubes containing buffers to stabilize the RNA of SARS-CoV-2 and inactivate the virus. These tubes are expensive and not always accessible in sufficient quantities. We now developed an alternative saliva testing method, using TRIzol for extraction, viral inactivation, and storage of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, combined with RT-qPCR, which was comparable in its performance to NPS. Paired saliva samples and NPS were taken from 15 asymptomatic healthcare workers and one patient with SARS-CoV-2. Further 13 patients with SARS-CoV-2 were only saliva-tested. All the tests were performed according to CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel. Saliva (4 mL) was taken in sterile 50 mL tubes, 1.5 mL TRIzol were added and mixed. Our results show that 5 µL of saliva RNA extracted with TRIzol allow for an adequate detection of the virus in patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 and was equally sensitive to NPS in TRIzol. We conclude that saliva testing using TRIzol is a recommendable method for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 since it has several advantages over currently used saliva tests: it can be done with normal sterile tubes, does not need cold-chain handling, is stable at room temperature, is non-invasive and less costly, making it more accessible for low-income countries. Cheaper saliva testing using TRIzol is especially relevant for low-income countries to optimize diagnosis and help define quarantine durations for families, healthcare workers, schools, and other public workplaces, thus decreasing infections and mortality caused by SARS-CoV-2.

Evaluation of RNA Extraction-Free Method for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Salivary Samples for Mass Screening for COVID-19.

In this COVID-19 pandemic, there is a dire need for cost-effective and less time-consuming alternatives for SARS-CoV-2 testing. The RNA extraction-free method for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in saliva is a promising option. This study found that it has high sensitivity (85.34%), specificity (95.04%), and was comparable to the gold standard nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) sample tests. The method showed good agreement between salivary and NPS samples, with a kappa coefficient of 0.797. However, there are variations in the sensitivity and specificity based on the RT-PCR kit used. The Thermo Fisher Applied Biosystems showed high sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) but also showed a higher percentage of invalid reports. On the other hand, the BGI kit showed high specificity, better agreement (kappa coefficient) between the results of saliva and NPS samples, and higher correlation between the Ct values of saliva and NPS samples. Thus, the RNA extraction-free method for salivary sample serves as an effective alternative screening method for COVID-19.

Combining machine learning and nanopore construction creates an artificial intelligence nanopore for coronavirus detection.

High-throughput, high-accuracy detection of emerging viruses allows for the control of disease outbreaks. Currently, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is currently the most-widely used technology to diagnose the presence of SARS-CoV-2. However, RT-PCR requires the extraction of viral RNA from clinical specimens to obtain high sensitivity. Here, we report a method for detecting novel coronaviruses with high sensitivity by using nanopores together with artificial intelligence, a relatively simple procedure that does not require RNA extraction. Our final platform, which we call the artificially intelligent nanopore, consists of machine learning software on a server, a portable high-speed and high-precision current measuring instrument, and scalable, cost-effective semiconducting nanopore modules. We show that artificially intelligent nanopores are successful in accurately identifying four types of coronaviruses similar in size, HCoV-229E, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva specimen is achieved with a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 96% with a 5-minute measurement.

A Multiplex One-Step RT-qPCR Protocol to Detect SARS-CoV-2 in NP/OP Swabs and Saliva.

Since December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has spread extensively throughout the world, with more than 117 million reported cases and 2.6 million deaths (Johns Hopkins coronavirus resource center, https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html). Detecting the virus is the first step in diagnosing the infection, followed by quarantine to prevent transmission. Nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs (NP/OP) and saliva are two specimen types that are most often analyzed to detect SARS-CoV-2 by molecular tests that detect viral RNA or by antigen/antibody tests that detect viral proteins and/or the host immune response against the virus. Compared to antigen/antibody tests, molecular tests are highly sensitive and specific for detecting the virus. A significant drawback is that specimen collection requirements are specific to each test and cannot be interchanged with another test. Some tests are qualified to be used on NP swabs or saliva, but not both specimen types. Even with NP swabs, a test may be qualified to detect the virus only with swabs collected in viral transport medium (VTM) but not in other media. These restrictive pre-analytic steps are disadvantageous in that a lab would have to develop and validate different tests for SARS-CoV-2 depending on the specimen type and collection media, with added setup cost, infrastructure, and training requirements. To overcome these problems, we developed and validated a cost-effective multiplex reverse-transcription real-time PCR assay that can be used to detect SARS-CoV-2 in different specimen types. The assay is highly sensitive and specific, can be used to detect the virus in saliva as well as NP swabs collected in different media such as VTM, saline, and commercial preservative fluid, and serves as one test for all applications. The protocol also describes an optimal laboratory setup and unidirectional workflow for detecting SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR. © 2021 The Authors. Current Protocols published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol 1: Manual viral nucleic acid extraction from NP/OP swabs collected in different media, and from saliva Alternate Protocol 1: Low-throughput automated extraction on the Qiagen EZ1 Advanced XL machine (1-14 samples) Alternate Protocol 2: High-throughput automated extraction on the Kingfisher Flex machine (1-96 samples) Basic Protocol 2: Multiplex RT-qPCR protocol to detect SARS-CoV-2 Alternate Protocol 3: Multiplex one-step RT-qPCR protocol to detect SARS-CoV-2 with S and E gene probes labeled with the same fluorochrome.

Stability of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Nonsupplemented Saliva.

The expense of saliva collection devices designed to stabilize severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 RNA is prohibitive to mass testing. However, virus RNA in nonsupplemented saliva is stable for extended periods and at elevated temperatures. Simple plastic tubes for saliva collection will make large-scale testing and continued surveillance easier.

Increased SARS-CoV-2 Testing Capacity with Pooled Saliva Samples.

We analyzed feasibility of pooling saliva samples for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 testing and found that sensitivity decreased according to pool size: 5 samples/pool, 7.4% reduction; 10 samples/pool, 11.1%; and 20 samples/pool, 14.8%. When virus prevalence is >2.6%, pools of 5 require fewer tests; when <0.6%, pools of 20 support screening strategies.

RT-PCR Screening Tests for SARS-CoV-2 with Saliva Samples in Asymptomatic People: Strategy to Maintain Social and Economic Activities while Reducing the Risk of Spreading the Virus.

The year 2020 will be remembered for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which continues to affect the whole world. Early and accurate identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is fundamental to combat the disease. Among the current diagnostic tests, real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the most reliable and frequently used method. Herein, we discuss the interpretation of RT-qPCR results relative to viral infectivity. Although nasopharyngeal swab samples are often used for RT-qPCR testing, they require collection by trained medical staff. Saliva samples are emerging as an inexpensive and efficient alternative for large-scale screening. Pooled-sample testing of saliva has been applied for mass screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Current policies recommend isolating people with borderline cycle threshold (Ct) values (35

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 infectivity of upper respiratory specimens from COVID-19 patients by virus isolation using VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells.

BACKGROUND: An outbreak of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2)-associated respiratory infectious diseases (COVID-19) emerged in 2019 and has spread rapidly in humans around the world. The demonstration of in vitro infectiousness of respiratory specimens is an informative surrogate for SARS-CoV-2 transmission from patients with COVID-19; accordingly, viral isolation assays in cell culture are an important aspect of laboratory diagnostics for COVID-19. METHODS: We developed a simple and rapid protocol for isolating SARS-CoV-2 from respiratory specimens using VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells, a cell line that is highly susceptible to the virus. We also investigated a correlation between isolation of SARS-CoV-2 and viral load detected by real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) using N2 primer/probe set that has been developed for testing of COVID-19 in Japan. RESULTS: The SARS-CoV-2 isolation protocol did not require blind passage of inoculated cells and yielded the results of viral isolation within 7 days after inoculation. Specimens with cycle threshold (Ct) values of <20.2, determined by rRT-PCR, were predicted to be isolation-positive. On the other hand, 6.9% of specimens with Ct values >35 were virus isolation-positive, indicating that low viral loads (high Ct values) in upper respiratory specimens do not always indicate no risk of containing transmissible virus. CONCLUSION: In combination with rRT-PCR, the SARS-CoV-2 isolation protocol provides a means for assessing the potential risk of transmissible virus in upper respiratory specimens.

The Sensitivity and Costs of Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Infection With Saliva Versus Nasopharyngeal Swabs : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nasopharyngeal swabs are the primary sampling method used for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but they require a trained health care professional and extensive personal protective equipment. PURPOSE: To determine the difference in sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection between nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva and estimate the incremental cost per additional SARS-CoV-2 infection detected with nasopharyngeal swabs. DATA SOURCES: Embase, Medline, medRxiv, and bioRxiv were searched from 1 January to 1 November 2020. Cost inputs were from nationally representative sources in Canada and were converted to 2020 U.S. dollars. STUDY SELECTION: Studies including at least 5 paired nasopharyngeal swab and saliva samples and reporting diagnostic accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 detection. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were independently extracted using standardized forms, and study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2). DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty-seven studies with 7332 paired samples were included. Against a reference standard of a positive result on either sample, the sensitivity of saliva was 3.4 percentage points lower (95% CI, 9.9 percentage points lower to 3.1 percentage points higher) than that of nasopharyngeal swabs. Among persons with previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, saliva's sensitivity was 1.5 percentage points higher (CI, 7.3 percentage points lower to 10.3 percentage points higher) than that of nasopharyngeal swabs. Among persons without a previous SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, saliva was 7.9 percentage points less (CI, 14.7 percentage points less to 0.8 percentage point more) sensitive. In this subgroup, if testing 100 000 persons with a SARS-CoV-2 prevalence of 1%, nasopharyngeal swabs would detect 79 more (95% uncertainty interval, 5 fewer to 166 more) persons with SARS-CoV-2 than saliva, but with an incremental cost per additional infection detected of $8093. LIMITATION: The reference standard was imperfect, and saliva collection procedures varied. CONCLUSION: Saliva sampling seems to be a similarly sensitive and less costly alternative that could replace nasopharyngeal swabs for collection of clinical samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity. (PROSPERO: CRD42020203415).

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of four different strategies for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance in the general population (CoV-Surv Study): a structured summary of a study protocol for a cluster-randomised, two-factorial controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: In this cluster-randomised controlled study (CoV-Surv Study), four different "active" SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies for general population surveillance are evaluated for their effectiveness in determining and predicting the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in a given population. In addition, the costs and cost-effectiveness of the four surveillance strategies will be assessed. Further, this trial is supplemented by a qualitative component to determine the acceptability of each strategy. Findings will inform the choice of the most effective, acceptable and affordable strategy for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance, with the most effective and cost-effective strategy becoming part of the local public health department's current routine health surveillance activities. Investigating its everyday performance will allow us to examine the strategy's applicability to real time prevalence prediction and the usefulness of the resulting information for local policy makers to implement countermeasures that effectively prevent future nationwide lockdowns. The authors would like to emphasize the importance and relevance of this study and its expected findings in the context of population-based disease surveillance, especially in respect to the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In Germany, but also in many other countries, COVID-19 surveillance has so far largely relied on passive surveillance strategies that identify individuals with clinical symptoms, monitor those cases who then tested positive for the virus, followed by tracing of individuals in close contact to those positive cases. To achieve higher effectiveness in population surveillance and to reliably predict the course of an outbreak, screening and monitoring of infected individuals without major symptoms (about 40% of the population) will be necessary. While current testing capacities are also used to identify such asymptomatic cases, this rather passive approach is not suitable in generating reliable population-based estimates of the prevalence of asymptomatic carriers to allow any dependable predictions on the course of the pandemic. To better control and manage the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, current strategies therefore need to be complemented by an active surveillance of the wider population, i.e. routinely conducted testing and monitoring activities to identify and isolate infected individuals regardless of their clinical symptoms. Such active surveillance strategies will enable more effective prevention of the spread of the virus as they can generate more precise population-based parameters during a pandemic. This essential information will be required in order to determine the best strategic and targeted short-term countermeasures to limit infection spread locally. TRIAL DESIGN: This trial implements a cluster-randomised, two-factorial controlled, prospective, interventional, single-blinded design with four study arms, each representing a different SARS-CoV-2 testing and surveillance strategy. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible are individuals age 7 years or older living in Germany's Rhein-Neckar Region who consent to provide a saliva sample (all four arms) after completion of a brief questionnaire (two arms only). For the qualitative component, different samples of study participants and non-participants (i.e. eligible for study, but refuse to participate) will be identified for additional interviews. For these interviews, only individuals age 18 years or older are eligible. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Of the four surveillance strategies to be assessed and compared, Strategy A1 is considered the gold standard for prevalence estimation and used to determine bias in other arms. To determine the cost-effectiveness, each strategy is compared to status quo, defined as the currently practiced passive surveillance approach. Strategy A1: Individuals (one per household) receive information and study material by mail with instructions on how to produce a saliva sample and how to return the sample by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the sample is tested for SARS-CoV-2 using Reverse Transcription Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification (RT-LAMP). Strategy A2: Individuals (one per household) receive information and study material by mail with instructions on how to produce their own as well as saliva samples from each household member and how to return these samples by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the samples are tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-LAMP. Strategy B1: Individuals (one per household) receive information by mail on how to complete a brief pre-screening questionnaire which asks about COVID-19 related clinical symptoms and risk exposures. Only individuals whose pre-screening score crosses a defined threshold, will then receive additional study material by mail with instructions on how to produce a saliva sample and how to return the sample by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the saliva sample is tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-LAMP. Strategy B2: Individuals (one per household) receive information by mail on how to complete a brief pre-screening questionnaire which asks about COVID-19 related clinical symptoms. Only individuals whose pre-screening score crosses a defined threshold, will then receive additional study material by mail with instructions how to produce their own as well as saliva samples from each household member and how to return these samples by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the samples are tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-LAMP. In each strategy, RT-LAMP positive samples are additionally analyzed with qPCR in order to minimize the number of false positives. MAIN OUTCOMES: The identification of the one best strategy will be determined by a set of parameters. Primary outcomes include costs per correctly screened person, costs per positive case, positive detection rate, and precision of positive detection rate. Secondary outcomes include participation rate, costs per asymptomatic case, prevalence estimates, number of asymptomatic cases per study arm, ratio of symptomatic to asymptomatic cases per study arm, participant satisfaction. Additional study components (not part of the trial) include cost effectiveness of each of the four surveillance strategies compared to passive monitoring (i.e. status quo), development of a prognostic model to predict hospital utilization caused by SARS-CoV-2, time from test shipment to test application and time from test shipment to test result, and perception and preferences of the persons to be tested with regard to test strategies. RANDOMISATION: Samples are drawn in three batches of three continuous weeks. Randomisation follows a two-stage process. First, a total of 220 sampling points have been allocated to the three different batches. To obtain an integer solution, the Cox-algorithm for controlled rounding has been used. Afterwards, sample points have been drawn separately per batch, following a probability proportional to size (PPS) random sample. Second, for each cluster the same number of residential addresses is randomly sampled from the municipal registries (self-weighted sample of individuals). The 28,125 addresses drawn per municipality are then randomly allocated to the four study arms A1, A2, B1, and B2 in the ratio 5 to 2.5 to 14 to 7 based on the expected response rates in each arm and the sensitivity and specificity of the pre-screening tool as applied in strategy B1 and B2. Based on the assumptions, this allocation should yield 2500 saliva samples in each strategy. Although a municipality can be sampled by multiple batches and the overall number of addresses per municipality might vary, the number of addresses contacted in each arm is kept constant. BLINDING (MASKING): The design is single-blinded, meaning the staff conducting the SARS-CoV-2 tests are unaware of the study arm assignment of each single participant and test sample. SAMPLE SIZES: Total sample size for the trial is 10,000 saliva samples equally allocated to the four study arms (i.e. 2,500 participants per arm). For the qualitative component, up to 60 in-depth interviews will be conducted with about 30 study participants (up to 15 in each arm A and B) and 30 participation refusers (up to 15 in each arm A and B) purposefully selected from the quantitative study sample to represent a variety of gender and ages to explore experiences with admission or rejection of study participation. Up to 25 asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positive study participants will be purposefully selected to explore the way in which asymptomatic men and women diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 give meaning to their diagnosis and to the dialectic between feeling concurrently healthy and yet also being at risk for transmitting COVID-19. In addition, 100 randomly selected study participants will be included to explore participants' perspective on testing processes and implementation. TRIAL STATUS: Final protocol version is "Surveillance_Studienprotokoll_03Nov2020_v1_2" from November 3, 2020. Recruitment started November 18, 2020 and is expected to end by or before December 31, 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is currently being registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), DRKS00023271 ( https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial . HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00023271). Retrospectively registered 30 November 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

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

BACKGROUND: Reverse transcription-quantitative PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs is currently the reference COVID-19 diagnosis method but exhibits imperfect sensitivity. METHODS: We developed a multiplex reverse transcription-digital droplet PCR (RT-ddPCR) assay, targeting 6 SARS-CoV-2 genomic regions, and evaluated it on nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva samples collected from 130 COVID-19 positive or negative ambulatory individuals, who presented symptoms suggestive of mild or moderate SARS-CoV2 infection. RESULTS: For the nasopharyngeal swab samples, the results obtained using the 6-plex RT-ddPCR and RT-qPCR assays were all concordant. The 6-plex RT-ddPCR assay was more sensitive than RT-qPCR (85% versus 62%) on saliva samples from patients with positive nasopharyngeal swabs. CONCLUSION: Multiplex RT-ddPCR represents an alternative and complementary tool for the diagnosis of COVID-19, in particular to control RT-qPCR ambiguous results. It can also be applied to saliva for repetitive sampling and testing individuals for whom nasopharyngeal swabbing is not possible.

Programmable low-cost DNA-based platform for viral RNA detection.

Detection of viruses is critical for controlling disease spread. Recent emerging viral threats, including Zika virus, Ebola virus, and SARS-CoV-2 responsible for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) highlight the cost and difficulty in responding rapidly. To address these challenges, we develop a platform for low-cost and rapid detection of viral RNA with DNA nanoswitches that mechanically reconfigure in response to specific viruses. Using Zika virus as a model system, we show nonenzymatic detection of viral RNA with selective and multiplexed detection between related viruses and viral strains. For clinical-level sensitivity in biological fluids, we paired the assay with sample preparation using either RNA extraction or isothermal preamplification. Our assay requires minimal laboratory infrastructure and is adaptable to other viruses, as demonstrated by quickly developing DNA nanoswitches to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva. Further development and field implementation will improve our ability to detect emergent viral threats and ultimately limit their impact.

A Case Study Evaluating the Risk of Infection from Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in a Hospital Setting Through Bioaerosols.

Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome, an emerging viral infection with a global case fatality rate of 35.5%, caused major outbreaks first in 2012 and 2015, though new cases are continuously reported around the world. Transmission is believed to mainly occur in healthcare settings through aerosolized particles. This study uses Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment to develop a generalizable model that can assist with interpreting reported outbreak data or predict risk of infection with or without the recommended strategies. The exposure scenario includes a single index patient emitting virus-containing aerosols into the air by coughing, leading to short- and long-range airborne exposures for other patients in the same room, nurses, healthcare workers, and family visitors. Aerosol transport modeling was coupled with Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate the risk of MERS illness for the exposed population. Results from a typical scenario show the daily mean risk of infection to be the highest for the nurses and healthcare workers (8.49 × 10-4 and 7.91 × 10-4 , respectively), and the lowest for family visitors and patients staying in the same room (3.12 × 10-4 and 1.29 × 10-4 , respectively). Sensitivity analysis indicates that more than 90% of the uncertainty in the risk characterization is due to the viral concentration in saliva. Assessment of risk interventions showed that respiratory masks were found to have a greater effect in reducing the risks for all the groups evaluated (>90% risk reduction), while increasing the air exchange was effective for the other patients in the same room only (up to 58% risk reduction).

Experimental Assessment of Zika Virus Mechanical Transmission by Aedes Aegypti.

The pandemic emergence of several mosquito-borne viruses highlights the need to understand the different ways in which they can be transmitted by vectors to human hosts. In this study, we evaluated the propensity of Aedes aegypti to transmit mechanically Zika virus (ZIKV) using an experimental design. Mosquitoes were allowed to feed on ZIKV-infected blood and were then rapidly transferred to feed on ZIKV-free blood until they finished their meal. The uninfected blood meals, the mosquito abdomens, as well as the mouthparts dissected from fully and partially engorged mosquitoes were analyzed using RT-qPCR and/or virus titration. All the fully engorged mosquito abdomens were ZIKV-infected, whereas their mouthparts were all ZIKV-negative. Nonetheless, one of the partially engorged mosquitoes carried infectious particles on mouthparts. No infectious virus was found in the receiver blood meals, while viral RNA was detected in 9% of the samples (2/22). Thus, mechanical transmission of ZIKV may sporadically occur via Ae. aegypti bite. However, as the number of virions detected on mouthparts (2 particles) is not sufficient to induce infection in a naïve host, our results indicate that mechanical transmission does not impact ZIKV epidemiology.

Assessing the value of PCR assays in oral fluid samples for detecting African swine fever, classical swine fever, and foot-and-mouth disease in U.S. swine.

INTRODUCTION: Oral fluid sampling and testing offers a convenient, unobtrusive mechanism for evaluating the health status of swine, especially grower and finisher swine. This assessment evaluates the potential testing of oral fluid samples with real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) to detect African swine fever, classical swine fever, or foot-and-mouth disease for surveillance during a disease outbreak and early detection in a disease-free setting. METHODS: We used a series of logical arguments, informed assumptions, and a range of parameter values from literature and industry practices to examine the cost and value of information provided by oral fluid sampling and rRT-PCR testing for the swine foreign animal disease surveillance objectives outlined above. RESULTS: Based on the evaluation, oral fluid testing demonstrated value for both settings evaluated. The greatest value was in an outbreak scenario, where using oral fluids would minimize disruption of animal and farm activities, reduce sample sizes by 23%-40%, and decrease resource requirements relative to current individual animal sampling plans. For an early detection system, sampling every 3 days met the designed prevalence detection threshold with 0.95 probability, but was quite costly. LIMITATIONS: Implementation of oral fluid testing for African swine fever, classical swine fever, or foot-and-mouth disease surveillance is not yet possible due to several limitations and information gaps. The gaps include validation of PCR diagnostic protocols and kits for African swine fever, classical swine fever, or foot-and-mouth disease on swine oral fluid samples; minimal information on test performance in a field setting; detection windows with low virulence strains of some foreign animal disease viruses; and the need for confirmatory testing protocol development.