Refining the Schistosoma haematobium recombinase polymerase amplification (Sh-RPA) assay: moving towards point-of-care use in endemic settings.

BACKGROUND: Urogenital schistosomiasis is caused by the parasitic trematode Schistosoma haematobium. Sensitive and specific point-of-care diagnostics are needed for elimination of this disease. Recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) assays meet these criteria, and an assay to diagnose S. haematobium has been developed (Sh-RPA). However, false-positive results can occur, and optimisation of reaction conditions to mitigate these is needed. Ease of use and compatibility of DNA extraction methods must also be considered. METHODS: Using synthetic DNA, S. haematobium genomic DNA (gDNA), and urine samples from clinical cases, Sh-RPA reactions incorporating different betaine concentrations (0 M, 1 M, 2.5 M, 12.5 M) and the sample-to-water ratios were tested to determine effects on assay specificity and sensitivity. In addition, five commercial DNA extraction kits suitable for use in resource-limited settings were used to obtain gDNA from single S. haematobium eggs and evaluated in terms of DNA quality, quantity, and compatibility with the Sh-RPA assay. All samples were also evaluated by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) to confirm DNA acquisition. RESULTS: The analytical sensitivity of the Sh-RPA with all betaine concentrations was ≥ 10 copies of the synthetic Dra1 standard and 0.1 pg of S. haematobium gDNA. The addition of betaine improved Sh-RPA assay specificity in all reaction conditions, and the addition of 2.5 M of betaine together with the maximal possible sample volume of 12.7 µl proved to be the optimum reaction conditions. DNA was successfully isolated from a single S. haematobium egg using all five commercial DNA extraction kits, but the Sh-RPA performance of these kits varied, with one proving to be incompatible with RPA reactions. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 2.5 M of betaine to Sh-RPA reactions improved reaction specificity whilst having no detrimental effect on sensitivity. This increases the robustness of the assay, advancing the feasibility of using the Sh-RPA assay in resource-limited settings. The testing of commercial extraction kits proved that crude, rapid, and simple methods are sufficient for obtaining DNA from single S. haematobium eggs, and that these extracts can be used with Sh-RPA in most cases. However, the observed incompatibility of specific kits with Sh-RPA highlights the need for each stage of a molecular diagnostic platform to be robustly tested prior to implementation.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in healthcare workers at a London NHS Trust.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) have a theoretically increased risk of contracting severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) given their occupational exposure. We tested 2,167 HCWs in a London Acute Integrated Care Organisation for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in May and June 2020 to evaluate seroprevalence. We found a seropositivity rate of 31.6% among HCWs.

Concordance between PCR-based extraction-free saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Introduction: Saliva represents a less invasive alternative to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection. SalivaDirect is a nucleic acid extraction-free method for detecting SARS-CoV2 in saliva specimens. Studies evaluating the concordance of gold standard NPS and newly developed SalivaDirect protocols are limited. The aim of our study was to assess SalivaDirect as an alternative method for COVID-19 testing. Methods: Matching NPS and saliva samples were analysed from a cohort of symptomatic (n=127) and asymptomatic (n=181) participants recruited from hospital and university settings, respectively. RNA was extracted from NPS while saliva samples were subjected to the SalivaDirect protocol before RT-qPCR analysis. The presence of SARS-Cov-2 was assessed using RdRp and N1 gene targets in NPS and saliva, respectively. Results: Overall we observed 94.3% sensitivity (95% CI 87.2-97.5%), and 95.9% specificity (95% CI 92.4-97.8%) in saliva when compared to matching NPS samples. Analysis of concordance demonstrated 95.5% accuracy overall for the saliva test relative to NPS, and a very high level of agreement (κ coefficient = 0.889, 95% CI 0.833-0.946) between the two sets of specimens. Fourteen of 308 samples were discordant, all from symptomatic patients. Ct values were >30 in 13/14 and >35 in 6/14 samples. No significant difference was found in the Ct values of matching NPS and saliva sample ( p=0.860). A highly significant correlation (r = 0.475, p<0.0001) was also found between the Ct values of the concordant positive saliva and NPS specimens. Conclusions: Use of saliva processed according to the SalivaDirect protocol represents a valid method to detect SARS-CoV-2. Accurate and less invasive saliva screening is an attractive alternative to current testing methods based on NPS and would afford greater capacity to test asymptomatic populations especially in the context of frequent testing.