key: cord-1019837-vnw72oqz
authors: Patriquin, Glenn; Davis, Ian; Heinstein, Charles; MacDonald, Jimmy; Hatchette, Todd F; LeBlanc, Jason J.
title: Exploring alternative swabs for use in SARS-CoV-2 detection from the oropharynx and anterior nares
date: 2020-08-09
journal: J Virol Methods
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2020.113948
sha: 6b03a425fa8470fecd26aa086d0e31e1a6da4268
doc_id: 1019837
cord_uid: vnw72oqz

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a worldwide shortage of nasopharyngeal swabs and universal transport media. This study evaluated a combined oropharynx/nares (OP/Na) sample collection using two readily-available non-flocked swabs, transported in phosphate-buffered saline, and demonstrates equivalent performance in SARS-CoV-2 detection compared to a previously-validated OP/Na collection kit.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the etiological agent of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) that quickly spread as a pandemic. [1] [2] [3] Like other respiratory viruses, molecular testing is the mainstay of COVID-19 diagnosis [4] [5] [6] , the preferred specimens being from the upper respiratory tract, collected with a flocked nasopharyngeal (NP) swab placed into universal transport medium (UTM). [7] During the pandemic, global supply chain disruptions of NPs and UTM J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f limited testing capacity worldwide, and alternatives were sought. A commercial collection kit commonly used for sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing, the Aptima Multitest Kit in specimen transport media (STM) (Hologic Inc), has been validated for SARS-CoV-2 detection. [8, 9] In a recent study, a combined sampling of the posterior oropharynx and bilateral anterior nares (OP/Na) using the Aptima swabs in STM was shown to be equivalent to NP swabs transported in UTM. [8] However, with increased demand for SARS-CoV-2 testing in clinical laboratories, availability of the Aptima swab collection kits has also become limited. Other recent studies demonstrated that phosphate buffered saline (PBS) was a suitable media for specimen transport as it supported the recovery of SARS-CoV-2 RNA for molecular detection. [10] [11] [12] This study evaluated the feasibility of using PBS as transport media following an OP/Na collection with one of two non-flocked swabs: 1) the M40 Transystem (Copan Italia, Brescia, Italy), a swab commonly used for bacterial culture [13, 14] ; and 2) the BD ProbeTec Qx Collection Kit for Endocervical and Lesion Specimens (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Sparks MD, USA), a swab used for molecular detection of STIs on the BD Viper instrument. [15, 16] 

Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) was performed using the SARS-CoV-2 assay on the Cobas 6800 system (Roche Diagnostics), and a positive result was defined as amplification of at least one of two genetic targets (Orf1a or E gene). To ensure compatibility of PBS on the instrument, analytical sensitivity was estimated using 10-fold serial dilutions of a SARS-CoV-2 derived from a positive clinical specimen, which were spiked 1:10 (v/v) into each transport medium (i.e. UTM, STM, and PBS). Experiments are the results of triplicate values obtained in three independent experiments using the same clinical specimen. For clinical specimens or viral dilutions prepared in UTM, dilutions in STM, a pre-processing dilution step (1:6) was required to overcome the deleterious effects its high concentrations of detergent. [8] Briefly, 200 µl of STM was diluted into 1 ml of Cobas Omni Specimen Diluent (Roche Diagnostics), mixed with gentle pipetting to avoid the formation of bubbles, and specimens were processed within 2h of preparation. Viral dilutions were quantified relative to a standard curve generated from quantified in vitro transcribed RNA which was provided in-kind by the National Microbiology Laboratory (Winnipeg, MB) (Table S1 ).

To assess the clinical performance of the two alternative non-flocked swabs (i.e. M40 Transystem and the BD ProbeTec Qx Collection Kit), 15 patients previously identified as COVID-positive with mild to moderate disease (living in long-term care or admitted to acute care) were enrolled into the study, after obtaining informed consent. OP/Na collections were performed sequentially on the same patient, using the M40 Transystem featuring a plastic shaft (Copan Italia, Brescia, Italy), the BD ProbeTec Qx Collection Kit for Endocervical and Lesion Specimens with a polyurethane tip (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Sparks MD, USA), and the Aptima Multitest Kit (Hologic Inc) was used as the reference method. [8] Following collection, both the M40 Transystem and the BD ProbeTec Qx endocervical swabs were placed in a 15 ml conical tube (Falcon, Corning Incorporated, Corning, NY, USA) containing 3 ml of sterile 1× PBS, pH 7.4 (Gibco, ThermoFisher Scientific), whereas the Aptima Multitest swab was placed into 2.9 ml of STM provided in the collection kit. Samples were transported to the laboratory and were processed in parallel within 4 hours, or alternatively, held at 4C until processed within 12h hours of collection.

The analytical sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 was not impacted by the different transport media, and the limit of detection at 95% for each was below 1 copy/ml (Table S1 ). While not significant, STM showed a J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f lower proportion of viral detection in dilution near the limit of detection, which might be attributed to the 1:6 dilution required for preprocessing of specimens in STM. [8] For clinical validation of OP/Na collection using the M40 and BD swabs compared to the Aptima swab, Table S2 ). In the first patient, both the M40 and BD swabs detected the E gene target in a specimen that was negative with the Aptima swab collection. In the second patient, SARS-CoV-2 was solely detected using a M40 swab collection, but both genetic targets were positive (Figure and Table S2) .

This study assessed the feasibility of an OP/Na collection with either M40 or BD swabs placed in PBS.

While this study could not perform a head-to-head comparison of M40 and BD swabs in PBS against the preferred collection device (i.e. NP in UTM) due to global supply chain shortages, the swabs collected in PBS were compared to the Aptima Multitest swab in STM -a reference collection shown not to be significantly different than NP swabs in UTM when using the SARS-CoV-2 assay on the Roche 6800 instrument. [8] The study initially assessed the ability to recover SARS-CoV-2 RNA from PBS, compared to both the study reference (i.e. STM) and traditional reference media (i.e. UTM). Overall, PBS had comparable analytical sensitivity to UTM. During testing using a 10-fold serial dilution of SARS-CoV-2 virus, the proportion of J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f viral dilutions in STM detected were lower than PBS or UTM, but differences did not achieve significance. A possible explanation for this observation might be the 1:6 dilution required for preprocessing of specimens in STM, given the high concentration of detergents. [8] More importantly, the analytical sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection in PBS was equivalent to UTM. The ability to use PBS as a transport medium for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 is congruent with previous reports [10] [11] [12] . Rodino et al [12] showed that PBS was a reasonable substitute to viral transport media, as SARS-CoV-2 RNA could be recovered for up to 7 days. Similarly, a study of swabs from endotracheal secretions of COVID-19 patients demonstrated stability and recovery of SARS-CoV-2 RNA from PBS when compared to UTM, even after 18 hours at room temperature. [11] A more recent study compared the performance of PBS transport for SARS-CoV-2 at various temperatures and extended periods of time. [10] While temperature and stability analyses were not performed in this study, under conditions for PBS transport (4C), minimal degradation of SARS-CoV-2 RNA occurred up to 28 days. [10] This far exceeds the maximum transport time required for transport to hospital or public health laboratories performing SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR in Canada. [5] For the clinical validation, OP/Na collection using M40 and BD swabs with PBS transport media were compared to a similar collection with Aptima swabs in STM. [8] This study targeted OP/Na collections in known positive patients with mild to moderate disease, as patients progressing to more severe COVID-19 disease might only be detected in lower respiratory tract specimens. [17] In the 15 patients enrolled in the study, Ct values for all swabs spanned a large range, with values spanning the mid-twenties to values near the assay limit of detection in the high thirties. Ct values of the two alternative swabs were strikingly similar, and were consistently lower than those of the accompanying reference swab. This is likely owing to the requirement of a 1:6 dilution during pre-processing of specimens collected in STM, which could lower the analytical sensitivity and possibly impact detection of patients with low viral loads J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f (i.e early or late disease). In fact, the Aptima swab collection missed the identification of 2 cases. The Ct values in discrepant results were near the limit of detection, ranging from 33.1 to 38.3, suggesting low viral loads in the upper respiratory tract. Interestingly, the collection using ProbeTec Qx swabs in PBS identified all previously known cases of COVID-19. The M40 swabs in PBS identified 93.3% (14/15), missing only a single case with a low viral load. At low viral loads, the molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 molecular lacks reproducibility. [5] Low viral loads have been demonstrated early in infection, and late in disease, possibly leading to false-negative results [18] , highlighting the importance of repeat testing in those with initial negative results but high clinical suspicion. [19] Though limited to known-positive patients with mild-moderate symptoms, and by a low number of study participants, this study provided clinical evidence that an OP/Na collection using non-flocked swabs designed for bacterial culture or cervical investigations can perform as well for the diagnosis of COVID-19 as the previously validated Aptima Multitest Kit. This report supports the use of PBS as a transport medium. Our results are supportive of those recently published, demonstrating the diagnostic reliability of cotton-tipped plastic swabs for NP sampling as compared to rayon-tipped swabs, transported in TRIS-EDTA. [20] Repurposed commonly used non-flocked swabs, paired with a readily available buffer provides a solution for COVID-19 testing during times of UTM and flocked NP swab shortages.

Glenn Patriquin: conceptualization, methodology, writing, reviewing, editing Ian Davis: conceptualization, methodology, writing, reviewing, editing Charles Heinstein: investigation, resources, writing, reviewing, editing Jimmy MacDonald: investigation, resources, writing, reviewing, editing J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Table S1 . Analytical sensitivity of transport media used for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

(copies/ml) 1 rRT-PCR result 2 UTM STM PBS Orf1a E Orf1a E Orf1a E 273.2 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 20.1 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 2.7 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 0.4 9/9 9/9 4/9 6/9 9/9 9/9 0.1 2/9 3/9 1/9 1/9 2/9 3/9 -0/9 0/9 0/9 0/9 0/9 0/9 1 Average concentration based on a standard curve generated with in vitro transcribed RNA for E gene. 

China Novel Coronavirus Investigating and Research Team. A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China

A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin

The species severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: Classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2

The laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 infection: Current issues and challenges

on behalf of the COVID-19 Pandemic Diagnostics Investigation Team of the Canadian Public Health Laboratory Network (CPHLN) Respiratory Virus Working Group. Real-time PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 detection in Canadian laboratories

Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR

How to obtain a nasopharyngeal swab specimen

A combined oropharyngeal/nares swab is a suitable alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2

Avaniss-Aghajani A. 2020. Validation of the Hologic's

Aptima Unisex and Multitest Specimen collection kits used for Endocervical and Male Urethral Swab Specimen (Aptima Swab) for sample collection of SARS-CoV-2

Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in PBS for molecular detection

Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is comparable in clinical samples preserved in saline or viral transport medium

Evaluation of saline, phosphate buffered saline and minimum essential medium as potential alternatives to viral transport media for SARS-CoV-2 testing

Evaluation of 4 swab transport systems for the recovery of ATCC and clinical strains with characterized resistance mechanisms

Evaluation of three swab transport systems for the maintenance of clinically important bacteria in simulated mono-and polymicrobial samples

Purification of DNA eluates From the ProbeTec GC Q(x) Assay on BD Viper XTR allows for further analysis and confirmation of gonorrhea

Detection and differentiation of herpes simplex viruses by use of the Viper platform: Advantages, limitations, and concerns

Variation in false-negative rate of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction-based SARS-CoV-2 tests by time since exposure

Interpreting a COVID-19 test result

Cotton-Tipped Plastic Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR Diagnosis to Prevent Supply Shortages

Two gene targets' (Orf1a and E gene) Ct values obtained on the Cobas 6800 RT-PCR assay

oropharyngeal/nares swabs obtained using Aptima Multitest kits, M40 bacterial swabs in phosphatebuffered saline (PBS), and BD ProbeTec Qx swabs in PBS

The authors are indebted to the members of the Division of Microbiology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Nova Scotia Health Authority (NSHA), who were instrumental for sample processing and laboratory testing.

No funding was received for this work. While commercial kits were used in the study, no industry sponsors were involved in the study concept, design, data analysis, or writing of the manuscript.

This project was a quality assurance initiative and did not require research ethics board review.

The authors have no conflicts to declare.