Evaluation and Clinical Validation of Guanidine-Based Inactivation Transport Medium for Preservation of SARS-CoV-2

Wiraswati, Hesti L.; Gaffar, Shabarni; Ekawardhani, Savira; Fauziah, Nisa; Rinawan, Fedri R.; Widyatmoko, Leonardus; Laelalugina, Amila; Arimdayu, Annissa R.; Kusniati, Tri; Andari, Clarisa D.; Faridah, Lia

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1677621

Advances in Pharmacological and Pharmaceutical Sciences

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Ethical Approval Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 1677621 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1677621

Evaluation and Clinical Validation of Guanidine-Based Inactivation Transport Medium for Preservation of SARS-CoV-2

Hesti L. Wiraswati,^1,2,3,4Shabarni Gaffar,^5,6Savira Ekawardhani,^1,2,3,4Nisa Fauziah,^1,2,3,4Fedri R. Rinawan,⁷Leonardus Widyatmoko,⁸Amila Laelalugina,^1,2Annissa R. Arimdayu,^1,2Tri Kusniati,^1,2Clarisa D. Andari,^1,2and Lia Faridah^1,2,3,4

Academic Editor: Benedetto Natalini

Received09 Feb 2022

Revised02 Jun 2022

Accepted10 Jun 2022

Published21 Jul 2022

Abstract

WHO declared the outbreak of COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, a pandemic in March 2020. More than 223 million cases and approximately 4.6 million deaths have been confirmed. Early diagnosis and immediate treatment became a priority during this pandemic. However, COVID-19 diagnostic testing resources are limited, especially early in the pandemic. Apart from being limited, the COVID-19 diagnostic tests using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have encountered storage, transportation, and safety issues. These problems are mainly experienced by developing poor countries, countries in the equatorial region, and archipelagic countries. VITPAD® is a guanidine-based inactivation transport medium (ITM) formulated to maintain the RNA quality of SARS-CoV-2 during transportation without cold chains. This study, conducted from September 2020 to March 2021, performed clinical validation of VITPAD® by comparing its performance with a globally commercially available ITM from the NEST brand. Its stability at room temperature, safety, and resistance at high temperatures was also tested using RT-PCR analysis. VITPAD® can reduce the infectious nature of the specimen, preserve the SARS-CoV-2 for 18 days at an ambient temperature, and resist high temperatures (40°C for 3 hours). A guanidine-based transport medium, such as VITPAD®, is compatible and recommended for RT-PCR-based molecular diagnosis of COVID-19.

1. Introduction

COVID-19 (coronavirus disease of 2019), caused by the SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), spread worldwide, being declared a pandemic by WHO (World Health Organization) in March 2020. As of September 2021, WHO has reported more than 223 million SARS-CoV-2 cases globally, with approximately 4.6 million deaths occurring in more than 230 WHO regions (regional organizational groupings by WHO, based on geographical terms but are not synonymous with geographical areas) [1].

Early diagnosis and immediate treatment of COVID-19 became a priority in order to reduce the spread of disease and break the chain of transmission [2, 3]. Diagnostic testing for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (ribonucleic acid) typically relies on detecting the virus through nucleic acid amplification or antigen identification. Following collection of a patient test sample, it is typically stored in a transport medium before transport to a testing facility [4–6].

The increasing demand for early diagnosis has placed significant demand on supply chains, including in the availability of testing equipment, assay components, swabs, and transport mediums. Therefore, there is a shortage of diagnostic resources. This shortage has become limiting for COVID-19 diagnosis testing [6–9]. As a result, delays in diagnosis and the rationing of diagnostic testing have been seen [5, 10–13].

One source of this shortage is the limited resource available recommended by WHO and the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). For COVID-19 diagnostic testing, WHO and the CDC recommend nasal or pharyngeal swabs that are stored in a viral transport medium (VTM) and tested using a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) [5, 9, 14–16]. Unfortunately, NAAT for SARS-CoV-2 detection has several limitations in terms of sensitivity among its various protocols [17, 18]. There is also the possibility of a false negative of the RT‐PCR test due to prolonged nucleic acid conversion (the period from the date of symptoms onset to the date of first negative RT-PCR test result) [19], changes in diagnostic accuracy over the disease course, and precarious availability of test materials [20]. Nevertheless, NAAT remains the gold standard globally [21] and is a better reference for developing alternative methods [22]. NAAT is also used as a rule for international travel by authorities [23–25]. It is urgently needed to help identify new variants of COVID-19 by PCR-SGTF (S-gene target failure) or whole-genome sequencing (WGS) [26–28].

Diagnostic test laboratories have used several alternative methods to NAAT [10, 16, 29–39]. However, all alternative methods still require the sample collection step and, therefore, require a swab and transport medium. The sample collection step includes various processes, such as specimen collection, packaging, storage, and transportation. Therefore, improper sample collection could affect the overall assay performance, the quality of the specimen, and the accuracy of COVID-19 diagnosis [15, 40, 41].

Some researchers have discussed alternatives to swabs [42] and transport medium [12, 13, 43, 44]. For example, Panpradist et al. (2020) recommended dry swabs to eliminate the need for a transport medium [45]. However, dry swabs have been found to have a false-negative rate of 47% [46]. Therefore, the transport medium is crucial for reliable COVID-19 diagnostic testing. Moreover, Scheier et al. (2021) did not detect any SARS-CoV-2 contamination of open sampling transport medium tubes during nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) sampling [47]. Healthcare workers could avoid contamination during NPS sampling by following biosafety protocols [6, 38, 48–50].

Many transport media are suitable for preserving viruses, including VTM or saline [51]. For example, a VTM based on culture medium is recommended by the CDC and WHO. However, it should be kept refrigerated at 2–8°C or frozen at −70°C or below (for storage more than 72 hours) [15, 41]. The transportation of these VTM is hard to fulfill in the development of poor countries where the electricity or cold-chain system is distributed not evenly. It is also difficult for the countries in the equatorial region and archipelagic countries, which need assurance and biosafety of the COVID-19 sample transportation.

Guanidinium thiocyanate or guanidinium hydrochloride has shown to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 and can be used for RT-PCR applications [52–54] since inactivation reagents were effective at reducing viral titers [55]. It was suggested to be used as part of SARS-CoV-2 NAAT at high-risk locations (schools, workplaces, prisons, skilled nursing facilities, homeless shelters, etc.) [52]. In this research, VITPAD®, a guanidine-based inactivation transport media (ITM) formulated to maintain the RNA quality of SARS-CoV-2 during transportation without cold chains, was evaluated. It claims to reduce the infectious nature of the sample while maintaining the quality of the specimen. VITPAD® ITM is a licensed nasopharyngeal specimen collection swab and medium storage from the Indonesian Ministry of Health (AKD 10302120146, PDKI BRM2054A).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Preparation

Inactivation preservation of SARS-CoV-2 was carried out from September 2020 to March 2021 at the Parasitology Laboratory, Advanced Biomedical Laboratory of the Universitas Padjadjaran. The preservation used was the adaptation of WHO guidance [56] where the viral transport medium was substituted with the inactivation transport medium. This study evaluated VITPAD® (Indonesian Ministry of Health AKD 10302120146, PDKI BRM2054A). VITPAD® is a domestically commercially available VTM. It contains the inactivating ingredient guanidine. VITPAD® consists of an NPS, storage tube (cryotube), and 2 mL of guanidine-based inactivation transport media.

VITPAD® ITM was compared with globally commercially available ITM from the NEST brand. Its stability at room temperature, safety, and performance at high temperatures were also evaluated. The tests and reagents are described below (see Table 1).

2.2. SARS-CoV-2 RNA Detection

We conducted NPS sampling of 99 subjects for the COVID-19 diagnosis test. Each subject was sampled 2 times: the first NPS was stored in VITPAD® ITM, and the second NPS was stored in NEST ITM. Samples were extracted, and viral RNA (gene targets: ORF1ab, N-gene, and E-gene) was measured by RT-PCR following the protocol specified by the RT-PCR kit used (Table 1).

To test the stability of VITPAD® ITM at room temperature (±25°C), NPS sampling of 30 subjects of the COVID-19 diagnosis test was stored in VITPAD®. It was aliquoted into 300-µL tubes. Each aliquot sample was stored at room temperature (±25°C). Viral RNA was measured after set periods had lapsed (0 days, 4 days, 8 days, 12 days, and 18 days) following the protocol specified by the RT-PCR kit used (Table 1).

The safety of VITPAD® ITM was tested by comparing NPS sampling of 38 subjects of the COVID-19 diagnosis test that was extracted with a lysis buffer and without a lysis buffer. Viral RNA was then detected by RT-PCR following the protocol specified by the RT-PCR kit used (Table 1).

For the resistance of VITPAD® ITM at high temperatures, NPS sampling of 12 subjects of the COVID-19 diagnosis test was aliquoted into 250-µL tubes. Each aliquot sample was incubated at 40°C for three hours. This temperature was chosen as it is the average estimated highest ambient temperature in Indonesia, while 3 hours was chosen by the average estimated travel time between Indonesian cities. The viral RNA was measured by RT-PCR following the protocol specified by the RT-PCR kit used (Table 1) and compared with control samples that were stored at room temperature (±25°C).

2.3. Statistical Analysis

For clinical validation, the internal control cycle threshold value (IC CT value) was analyzed by using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis approach. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were analyzed by using licensed IBM SPSS Version 26. Ordinary one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni and Šídák multiple comparison tests was applied to calculate and compare -values for VITPAD® ITM stability test at room temperature (±25°C) for 4, 8, 12, and 18 days. An unpaired t-test was used for the analysis of the VITPAD® ITM safety test and the resistance test at 40°C. The distribution of the data was tested by the D’Agostino–Pearson normality test. -value <0.05 is considered statistically significant. Analysis of these data and graphing were done by GraphPad Prism 9.0.0 for Windows.

3. Results

3.1. Comparison between VITPAD® ITM and NEST ITM

Out of the 99 samples tested, VITPAD® ITM positive rate is 19.2%. Meanwhile, NEST ITM positive rate is 15.2% with an invalid result of 1% (, Fisher’s exact test. The positive rate results are not affected by the type of ITM brand). The data are displayed below (see Table 2).

Figure 1 describes the internal control cycle threshold value (IC CT value) of the Sansure reagent of VITPAD® ITM. Samples were clustered to the left side, near zero (skewness value = 0.805; median = 23.74; mode = 20.62; kurtosis = 0.409; Shapiro–Wilk = 0.001). The IC CT values of the NEST ITM samples were clustered in the middle (skewness value = 0.291; median = 23.745; mode = 23; kurtosis = 0.397; Shapiro–Wilk = 0.579). The left-clustered data of the VITPAD® ITM mean that the data had lower IC CT values. Therefore, the VITPAD® ITM is more stable regarding retaining samples, namely, the human epithelium contained in the IC of the Sansure reagent. The implication of this is that more RNA could be calculated for the COVID-19 diagnostic test, thereby reducing the risk of obtaining invalid results.

(a)

(b)

A ROC curve analysis approach was used for calculating the IC CT value of the Sansure reagent. This ensured that the performance of each ITM regarding maintaining sample stability was not associated with the cutoff of positive and negative values of the SARS-CoV-2 target gene. As seen in Figure 2, the area under the curve was not significant for the VITPAD® ITM (), while on the NEST ITM, it was significant (). In this case, a nonsignificant result means that the VITPAD® ITM is not associated with the cutoff positive and negative values of the SARS-CoV-2 target gene.

(a)

(b)

3.2. VITPAD® ITM Stability at Room Temperature (±25°C)

VITPAD® ITM maintained the CT value of all the target genes (ORF1ab, N-gene, and E-gene) at room temperature (±25°C). Using RT-PCR, samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA after 0, 4, 8, 12, and 18 days. One-way ANOVA test results found that the -value for each target gene was more than 0.05 and, therefore, not statistically significant (see Table 3).

The ANOVA tests were followed by Bonferroni and Šídák tests to compare the difference between each storage day (multiple comparisons). Bonferroni and Šídák tests were also not statistically significant for all the target genes (see Figure 3). VITPAD® ITM can maintain the sample at room temperature for 18 days.

3.3. Safety Test of VITPAD® ITM

There was no significant difference between the CT values of COVID-19 target genes in samples stored in the VITPAD® ITM (, unpaired t-test). Therefore, the extraction procedure of COVID-19 samples stored in VITPAD® ITM could be performed with or without the use of a lysis buffer prior to performing RT-PCR, as the CT values will not differ (see Figure 4).

3.4. VITPAD® ITM Performance at 40°C Temperature

There was no significant difference between the CT values of the COVID-19 target genes in the samples stored for 3 hours in the VITPAD® ITM at ±25°C or 40^oC (, unpaired t-test). Therefore, COVID-19 samples could be stored in the VITPAD® ITM at 40^oC for 3 hours without impacting the CT value of the diagnostic test results (see Figure 5).

4. Discussion

COVID-19 diagnostic testing requires a reliable transport medium. Specifically, it requires a viral medium that remains stable in the environment or when exposed to high temperatures and remains safe from interference during the storage or sample transfer process. In 2020, Garnett et al. [42] and van Bockel et al. [50] reported a variety of swabs and transport mediums suitable for SARS-CoV-2 testing. However, the number of VTMs is still limited in many countries. This problem led to the development of a domestic transport medium (VITPAD® ITM) for COVID-19 diagnostic testing in Indonesia. This transport medium is equipped with nylon NPSs, which are six times more resistant than Dacron swabs [40], and was recommended by the CDC in their recent guidelines for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis [57].

The VITPAD® ITM reagent is a buffer, solution-based medium that enables samples to be stored at room temperature. For health facilities that have a limited number of cold storage spaces, this will be beneficial. The clinical evaluation showed that the VITPAD® ITM produced similar results when compared to the NEST ITM. However, surprisingly, the majority of IC CT values regarding the Sansure reagent of the VITPAD® ITM were lower. Therefore, the VITPAD® ITM has more stability regarding retaining the sample. This result aligns with the findings of Nairz et al. (2021) [58], who stated that an in-house swab system was superior to most commercially available sets, indicated by definitively lower CT values of viral genes. This report shows that the VITPAD® ITM can effectively maintain the stability of nucleic acids in swab samples during transportation from the sampling site to a COVID-19 RT-PCR laboratory.

Transportation of samples is a challenge for health facilities located at significant distances away from RT-PCR laboratories. Transportation in such cases requires a cooling system for sample collection and delivery. Nucleic acids in biological samples are susceptible to degradation if they are not stored between 2 and 8°C. Long-term storage (more than 72 hours) for further analysis, that is, whole-genome sequencing (WGS), viral culture, or diagnostic purposes, requires a freezer (70°C or below).

Stability tests indicated that the VITPAD® ITM is able to maintain nucleic acid stability at room temperature for a storage period of up to 18 days. This would be beneficial during sample transfer, as sample handling would be simplified as the transfer process could occur without a cool box, saving space, and limiting the risk of sample damage. This could also be beneficial in the event that an RT-PCR laboratory becomes overloaded with samples, as the samples could be stored without the need for cold storage facilities. Moreover, the number of health facilities is higher than the number of COVID-19 RT-PCR laboratories.

Without the need for cold storage facilities, the RT-PCR laboratory could store more samples in their existing storage rooms. The sampling processes that occur at health facilities determine whether a nucleic acid sample can be analyzed properly in a COVID-19 RT-PCR laboratory. The VITPAD® ITM would be able to increase the efficiency of a mass screening program, particularly if access to an icebox, fridge, or freezer is unreliable or nonexistent at the sampling site.

While genetic materials deteriorate more rapidly at higher temperatures [59] and the SARS-CoV-2 is sensitive to heat [60], the use of the VITPAD® ITM could mitigate concerns of SARS-CoV-2 RNA degradation due to heat exposure. The performance tests showed that the diagnostic test results were stable after 3 hours of incubation at 40°C. Therefore, the VITPAD® ITM can transport samples when temperatures are high, above room temperature (±25°C). This is important, as the temperature during the summer months often reaches temperatures of more than 30°C in many countries.

In Indonesia, data from the Meteorological, Climatological, and Geophysical Agency stated that the maximum temperature in Indonesia is trending toward 40^oC [61]. The VITPAD® ITM could simplify the transportation and collection of COVID-19 specimens in a remote or isolated area. Furthermore, the VITPAD® ITM is safe, as the virus inside the transport medium is in the form of genetic material (RNA) and, therefore, may be less infectious than in its viral form. Based on this, it is highly recommended that the VITPAD® ITM be used for the PCR-based molecular diagnosis of COVID-19.

With the limited number of samples and variation of the machines and reagents due to its limitations and availability throughout the research, we ensure that every comparative analysis between each variable in each type of test (comparison between VITPAD® ITM and NEST ITM; stability of VITPAD® ITM at room temperature (±25^oC); safety test of VITPAD® ITM; and VITPAD® ITM high-temperature resistance (40^oC)) carried out using the same machines and consumables (Table 1). This was done because various RT-PCR protocols may not have a similar analytical or clinical sensitivity and specificity even when used for the same COVID-19 clinical sample [18]. Therefore, we ensured this research use of the same consumables and RT-PCR protocols in each variable in each test type.

5. Conclusions

The VITPAD® ITM can be used as a transport medium for diagnostic tests of COVID-19. It can preserve the SARS-CoV-2 for 18 days at room temperature (±25°C). It maintains sample stability even after 3 hours of incubation at 40^oC. The VITPAD® ITM reduces the potential of biohazard events occurring, as most of the samples are in the form of RNA. Therefore, this transport medium can effectively facilitate the transportation and collection of COVID-19 specimens, particularly for remote or isolated areas in Indonesia.

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included within the article and in supplementary information files.

Ethical Approval

The Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Padjadjaran, has approved this study (registration no. 0720121265). The study was conducted within the Biological Safety Cabinet Class II in the Parasitology Laboratory, Biomedical Laboratory of the Universitas Padjadjaran. All researchers tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 prior to beginning the experiments and were periodically nasal swabbed and PCR tested.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

H.L.W., S.G., and L.F. conceived and designed this study. L.W., A.L., A.R.A., and T.K. performed data collection. N.F. F.R.R., S.E., and C.D.A. performed statistical analyses for this study. H.L.W., S.G., S.E., N.F., and L.F. reviewed data selection, the study process, and analysis of the data. C.D.A. drafted the article, and H.L.W., S.G., S.E., N.F., and L.F. reviewed for the improvement of the overall quality. All authors agreed to submit the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Science and Technology Zone Universitas Padjadjaran (KST-UNPAD), Directorate for Research, Community Service, and Innovation of Universitas Padjadjaran (Direktorat Riset, Pengabdian Pada Masyarakat, dan Inovasi (DRPMI-UNPAD)), and C.29 Laboratory of the Faculty of Medicine of Universitas Padjadjaran.

Supplementary Materials

Additional file APPENDIX: (I) Appendix 1. RT-PCR results of COVID-19 samples stored in VITPAD® ITM at room temperature (±25°C) for different storage days. (II) Appendix 2. RT-PCR results of COVID-19 samples in VITPAD® ITM, extracted with and without lysis buffer. (III) Appendix 3. RT-PCR results of COVID-19 samples stored in VITPAD® ITM, incubated at 40°C for 3 hours. (IV) Appendix 4. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve statistical analysis. (V) Appendix 5. t-test for the safety of VITPAD® ITM. (VI) Appendix 6. t-test for the resistance of VITPAD® ITM. (Supplementary Materials)

References

World Health Organization, “WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard,” 2021, https://covid19.who.int/table.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Tomo, S. Karli, K. Dharmalingam, D. Yadav, and P. Sharma, “The clinical laboratory: a key player in diagnosis and management of COVID-19,” EJIFCC, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 326–346, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. P. Tu and T. J. O’Leary, “Testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2: challenges in getting good specimens, choosing the right test, and interpreting the results,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 1680–1689, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. N. Esbin, O. N. Whitney, S. Chong, A. Maurer, X. Darzacq, and R. Tjian, “Overcoming the bottleneck to widespread testing: a rapid review of nucleic acid testing approaches for COVID-19 detection,” RNA, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 771–783, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Ravi, D. L. Cortade, E. Ng, and S. X. Wang, “Diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 detection: a comprehensive review of the FDA-EUA COVID-19 testing landscape,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 165, Article ID 112454, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. McAuley, C. Fraser, E. Paraskeva et al., “Optimal preparation of SARS-CoV-2 viral transport medium for culture,” Virology Journal, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 53, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. J. Mascuch, S. Fakhretaha-Aval, J. C. Bowman et al., “A blueprint for academic laboratories to produce SARS-CoV-2 quantitative RT-PCR test kits,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 295, no. 46, pp. 15438–15453, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Shetty, M. Gurav, P. Bapat et al., “COVID 19 pandemic testing time - crisis or opportunity in disguise for India?” Seminars in Oncology, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 152–155, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Younes, D. W. Al-Sadeq, H. Al-Jighefee et al., “Challenges in laboratory diagnosis of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2,” Viruses, vol. 12, no. 6, p. 582, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Calvez, A. Taylor, L. Calvo-Bado, D. Fraser, and C. G. Fink, “Molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 using a reagent-free approach,” PLoS One, vol. 15, no. 12, Article ID e0243266, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. P. Morehouse, C. M. Proctor, G. L. Ryan, and R. J. Nash, “A novel two-step, direct-to-PCR method for virus detection off swabs using human coronavirus 229E,” Virology Journal, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 129, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Radbel, S. Jagpal, J. Roy et al., “Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is comparable in clinical samples preserved in saline or viral transport medium,” Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 871–875, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. A. Rogers, R. E. Baumann, G. A. Borillo et al., “Evaluation of transport media and specimen transport conditions for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by use of real-time reverse transcription-PCR,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. e00708–e00720, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Feng, A. M. Newbigging, C. Le et al., “Molecular diagnosis of COVID-19: challenges and research needs,” Analytical Chemistry, vol. 92, no. 15, pp. 10196–10209, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Kilic, R. Weissleder, and H. Lee, “Molecular and immunological diagnostic tests of COVID-19: current status and challenges,” iScience, vol. 23, no. 8, Article ID 101406, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Alaifan, A. Altamimi, D. Obeid, T. Alshehri, S. Almatrrouk, and A. Albarrag, “SARS-CoV-2 direct real-time polymerase chain reaction testing in laboratories with shortage challenges,” Future Virology, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 133–139, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Dramé, M. Tabue Teguo, E. Proye et al., “Should RT-PCR be considered a gold standard in the diagnosis of COVID-19?” Journal of Medical Virology, vol. 92, no. 11, pp. 2312-2313, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. F. Sule and D. O. Oluwayelu, “Real-time RT-PCR for COVID-19 diagnosis: challenges and prospects,” Pan African Medical Journal, vol. 35, no. Suppl 2, p. 121, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. T. Xiao, Y. X. Tong, and S. Zhang, “False negative of RT-PCR and prolonged nucleic acid conversion in COVID-19: rather than recurrence,” Journal of Medical Virology, vol. 92, no. 10, pp. 1755-1756, 2020 Oct.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Sidiq, M. Hanif, K. K. Dwivedi, and K. K. Chopra, “Benefits and limitations of serological assays in COVID-19 infection,” Indian Journal of Tuberculosis, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. S163–S166, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
WHO, “WHO provides one million antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test kits to accelerate COVID-19 testing in Indonesia,” 2021, https://www.who.int/indonesia/news/detail/17-03-2021-who-provides-one-million-antigen-detecting-rapid-diagnostic-test-kits-to-accelerate-covid-19-testing-in-indonesia.
View at: Google Scholar
J. V. Waller, P. Kaur, A. Tucker et al., “Diagnostic tools for coronavirus disease (COVID-19): comparing CT and RT-PCR viral nucleic acid testing,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 215, no. 4, pp. 834–838, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Consulate general of the republic of Indonesia, “Update: Indonesia travel restrictions,” 2021, https://kemlu.go.id/losangeles/en/news/11727/update-indonesia-travel-restrictions.
View at: Google Scholar
Ministry of the Interior of France, “COVID-19: international travel,” 2022, https://www.interieur.gouv.fr/covid-19-international-travel.
View at: Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Required testing before air travel to the US,” 2022, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/testing-international-air-travelers.html.
View at: Google Scholar
J. P. M. Coolen, F. Wolters, A. Tostmann et al., “SARS-CoV-2 whole-genome sequencing using reverse complement PCR: for easy, fast and accurate outbreak and variant analysis,” Journal of Clinical Virology, vol. 144, Article ID 104993, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Wolter, W. Jassat, S. Walaza et al., “Early assessment of the clinical severity of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant in South Africa: a data linkage study,” The Lancet, vol. 399, no. 10323, pp. 437–446, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. F. Tseng, B. K. Ackerson, Y. Luo et al., “Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 against SARS-CoV-2 omicron and delta variants,” Nature Medicine, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 1063–1071, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01753-y.
View at: Google Scholar
N. M. Adams, M. Leelawong, A. Benton, C. Quinn, F. R. Haselton, and J. E. Schmitz, “COVID-19 diagnostics for resource-limited settings: evaluation of “unextracted” qRT-PCR,” Journal of Medical Virology, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 559–563, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Agarwal, E. Gupta, S. Dubey et al., “Pooled nasopharyngeal swab collection in a single vial for the diagnosis of SARS CoV-2 infection: an effective cost saving method,” Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 231–234, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. G. Andryukov, N. N. Besednova, T. A. Kuznetsova, and L. N. Fedyanina, “Laboratory-based resources for COVID-19 diagnostics: traditional tools and novel technologies. a perspective of personalized medicine,” Journal of Personalized Medicine, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 42, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Arumugam, M. L. Faron, P. Yu, C. Markham, M. Wu, and S. Wong, “A rapid SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay for low resource settings,” Diagnostics, vol. 10, no. 10, p. 739, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Barza, P. Patel, L. Sabatini, and K. Singh, “Use of a simplified sample processing step without RNA extraction for direct SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR detection,” Journal of Clinical Virology, vol. 132, Article ID 104587, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. R. Hasan, F. Mirza, H. Al-Hail et al., “Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by direct RT-qPCR on nasopharyngeal specimens without extraction of viral RNA,” PLoS One, vol. 15, no. 7, Article ID e0236564, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Kobayashi, R. Murai, K. Asanuma, Y. Fujiya, and S. Takahashi, “Evaluating a novel, highly sensitive, and quantitative reagent for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antigen,” Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 800–807, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. L. Lim, N. A. Johari, S. T. Wong et al., “A novel strategy for community screening of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): sample pooling method,” PLoS One, vol. 15, no. 8, Article ID e0238417, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Qian, S. A. Boswell, C. Chidley et al., “An enhanced isothermal amplification assay for viral detection,” Nature Communications, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 5920, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Yamamoto, M. Suzuki, G. Yamada et al., “Utility of the antigen test for coronavirus disease 2019: factors influencing the prediction of the possibility of disease transmission,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 104, pp. 65–72, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Wei, E. Kohl, A. Djandji et al., “Direct diagnostic testing of SARS-CoV-2 without the need for prior RNA extraction,” Scientific Reports, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 2402, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Bidkar, K. Selvaraj, M. Mishra, V. Shete, and A. Sajjanar, “A comparison of swab types on sample adequacy, suspects comfort and provider preference in COVID-19,” American Journal of Otolaryngology, vol. 42, no. 2, Article ID 102872, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. B. Shrestha and K. Pokharel, “Standard operating procedure for specimen collection, packaging and transport for diagnosis of SARS-COV-2,” JNMA; Journal of the Nepal Medical Association, vol. 58, no. 228, pp. 627–629, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Garnett, A. Bello, K. N. Tran et al., “Comparison analysis of different swabs and transport mediums suitable for SARS-CoV-2 testing following shortages,” Journal of Virological Methods, vol. 285, Article ID 113947, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. A. Perchetti, M. L. Huang, V. Peddu, K. R. Jerome, and A. L. Greninger, “Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in phosphate-buffered saline for molecular detection,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 58, no. 8, p. e01094, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. G. Rodino, M. J. Espy, S. P. Buckwalter et al., “Evaluation of saline, phosphate-buffered saline, and minimum essential medium as potential alternatives to viral transport media for SARS-CoV-2 testing,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 58, no. 6, p. e00590, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Panpradist, Q. Wang, P. S. Ruth et al., “Simpler and faster COVID-19 testing: strategies to streamline SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays,” EBioMedicine, vol. 64, Article ID 103236, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. M. Thwe and P. Ren, “How many are we missing with ID NOW COVID-19 assay using direct nasopharyngeal swabs? Findings from a mid-sized academic hospital clinical microbiology laboratory,” Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, vol. 98, no. 2, Article ID 115123, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Scheier, C. Shah, M. Huber et al., “Do we cause false positives? An experimental series on droplet or airborne SARS-CoV-2 contamination of sampling tubes during swab collection in a test center,” Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 51, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. U. Islam and J. Iqbal, “An update on molecular diagnostics for COVID-19,” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, vol. 10, Article ID 560616, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Karthik, R. P. Aravindh Babu, K. Dhama et al., “Biosafety concerns during the collection, transportation, and processing of COVID-19 samples for diagnosis,” Archives of Medical Research, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 623–630, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. van Bockel, C. M. L. Munier, S. Turville et al., “Evaluation of commercially available viral transport medium (VTM) for SARS-CoV-2 inactivation and use in point-of-care (POC) testing,” Viruses, vol. 12, no. 11, p. 1208, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Druce, K. Garcia, T. Tran, G. Papadakis, and C. Birch, “Evaluation of swabs, transport media, and specimen transport conditions for optimal detection of viruses by PCR,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 1064-1065, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Banik, K. Saibire, S. Suryavanshi et al., “Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 virus in saliva using a guanidium based transport medium suitable for RT-PCR diagnostic assays,” PLoS One, vol. 16, no. 6, Article ID e0252687, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. L. Roberts and D. Lloyd, “Virus inactivation by protein denaturants used in affinity chromatography,” Biologicals, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 343–347, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Weidner, S. Laner-Plamberger, D. Horner et al., “Sample buffer containing guanidine-hydrochloride combines biological safety and RNA preservation for SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics,” Diagnostics, vol. 12, no. 5, p. 1186, 2022 May 10.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. R. Welch, K. A. Davies, H. Buczkowski et al., “Analysis of inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 by specimen transport media, nucleic acid extraction reagents, detergents, and fixatives,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 58, no. 11, Article ID e01713, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
WHO, “Laboratory testing for Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in suspected human cases,” 2020, https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1272156/retrieve.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Freire-Paspuel, P. Vega-Mariño, A. Velez et al., “Cotton-tipped plastic swabs for SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR diagnosis to prevent supply shortages,” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, vol. 10, p. 356, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Nairz, R. Bellmann-Weiler, M. Ladstätter et al., “Overcoming limitations in the availability of swabs systems used for SARS-CoV-2 laboratory diagnostics,” Scientific Reports, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 2261, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Luinstra, A. Petrich, S. Castriciano et al., “Evaluation and clinical validation of an alcohol-based transport medium for preservation and inactivation of respiratory viruses,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 2138–2142, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Dehbandi and M. A. Zazouli, “Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental conditions,” The Lancet Microbe, vol. 1, no. 4, p. e145, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
BMKG, “Tren Suhu,” 2021, https://www.bmkg.go.id/iklim/?p=tren-suhu.
View at: Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Hesti L. Wiraswati et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

552

Downloads

572

Citations