False-negative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 test results can negatively impact the clinical and public health response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We used droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) to demonstrate that human DNA levels, a stable molecular marker of sampling quality, were significantly lower in samples from 40 confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases that yielded negative diagnostic test results (ie, suspected false-negative test results) compared with a representative pool of 87 specimens submitted for COVID-19 testing. Our results support suboptimal biological sampling as a contributor to false-negative COVID-19 test results and underscore the importance of proper training and technique in the collection of nasopharyngeal specimens.

No abstract

Due to global shortages of flocked nasopharyngeal swabs and appropriate viral transport media during the COVID-19 pandemic, alternate diagnostic specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection are sought. The accuracy and feasibility of saliva samples collected and transported without specialized collection devices or media were evaluated. Saliva demonstrated good concordance with paired nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection in 67/74 cases (90.5%), though barriers to saliva collection were observed in long-term care residents and outbreak settings. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was stable in human saliva at room temperature for up to 48 h after initial specimen collection, informing appropriate transport time and conditions.

Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre-including this research content-immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

No abstract

Quantitative viral load assays have transformed our understanding of viral diseases. They hold similar potential to advance COVID-19 control and prevention, but SARS-CoV-2 viral load tests are not yet widely available. SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic tests, which typically employ real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), yield semi-quantitative results only. Droplet digital RT-PCR (RT-ddPCR) offers an attractive platform for SARS-CoV-2 RNA quantification. We evaluated eight primer/probe sets originally developed for real-time RT-PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests for use in RT-ddPCR, and identified three (Charité-Berlin E-Sarbeco and Pasteur Institute IP2 and IP4) as the most efficient, precise and sensitive for RT-ddPCR-based SARS-CoV-2 RNA quantification. For example, E-Sarbeco primer/probe set analytical efficiency was approximately 83%, while assay precision, measured as coefficient of variation, was approximately 2% at 1000 input copies/reaction. Lower limits of quantification and detection for this primer/probe set were 18.6 and 4.4 input SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/reaction, respectively. SARS-CoV-2 RNA viral loads in a convenience panel of 48 COVID-19-positive diagnostic specimens spanned a 6.2log 10 range, confirming substantial viral load variation in vivo . We further calibrated RT-ddPCR-derived SARS-CoV-2 E gene copy numbers against cycle threshold (C t ) values from a commercial real-time RT-PCR diagnostic platform. This log-linear relationship can be used to mathematically-derive SARS-CoV-2 RNA copy numbers from C t values, allowing the wealth of available diagnostic test data to be harnessed to address foundational questions in SARS-CoV-2 biology.

Due to global shortages of flocked nasopharyngeal swabs and appropriate viral transport media during the COVID-19 pandemic, alternate diagnostic specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection are sought. The accuracy and feasibility of saliva samples collected and transported without specialized collection devices or media were evaluated. Saliva demonstrated good concordance with paired nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection in 67/74 cases (90.5%), though barriers to saliva collection were observed in long-term care residents and outbreak settings. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was stable in human saliva at room temperature for up to 48 hours after initial specimen collection, informing appropriate transport time and conditions.

Nasopharyngeal swabs are critical to the diagnosis of respiratory infections including COVID-19, but collection techniques vary. We compared two recommended nasopharyngeal swab collection techniques in adult volunteers and found that swab rotation following nasopharyngeal contact did not recover additional nucleic acid (as measured by human DNA/RNA copy number). Rotation was also less tolerable for participants. Notably, both discomfort and nucleic acid recovery were significantly higher in Asians, consistent with nasal anatomy differences. Our results suggest that it is unnecessary to rotate the swab in place following contact with the nasopharynx, and reveal that procedural discomfort levels can differ by ethnicity.