An affordable, scalable and highly sensitive virus-genome-based testing approach
A key component of the proposed strategy has been the development of highly-scalable, cost effective techniques to detect the viral genome with high sensitivity and specificity before infected persons becomes infectious themselves, in millions and ultimately billions of samples. This basically rules out the use of antigen-based rapid tests, which typically miss the first three days of a ten-day-long infectious period6. Standard qPCR tests, with their ability to identify individual genome molecules would be sufficiently sensitive: a new infection can only take place after an eclipse phase, which ends sometime after detectable RNA concentrations have been reached7. They are, however, not sufficiently scalable (e.g. total PCR test capacity in Germany falls short by > 2 orders of magnitude) and the cost would be prohibitive.
We have therefore developed a x10-x20 more efficient, highly sensitive virus-genome-based test, using PCR technologies developed by some of us as part of the Human Genome Project8, and used to genotype billions of samples over the last decades3. All equipment is commercially available. Since we use the same reactions as standard qPCR tests but read the result differently (endpoint measurement3), we achieve the same sensitivity and specificity in a much more scalable fashion and at much lower costs per sample (~€ 1 per PCR test for very high throughput). See Fig. 1 for overview of the test pipeline.
The procedure is EU-wide CE approved in gargle- and smear-based versions and is already being used in Germany to test the employees of Unilever and other companies. The key advantage is that infected individuals can be identified days earlier than with the antigen-based rapid tests currently used by the vast majority of companies; a prerequisite to stopping the spread of the virus. The test is highly scalable: A single commercially available water bath PCR system with a capacity of 100x 384 PCR plates per run would be able to carry out > 600,000 RT-PCR reactions per day, close to three times the entire PCR test capacity currently available in Germany. A potential limitation is still the supply of test tubes and pipette tips (one per sample, far less than for standard qPCR tests). However, equipment to wash and reuse pipette tips is commercially available and approved for COVID-199,10 and machines to reuse the sample tubes could be rapidly developed based on similar principles. The approach can also, in a slightly modified form, be easily used to identify sequence variants11. We will therefore be able to identify the most relevant groups of variants (e.g. UK, B.1.1.7; South Africa, B.1.351; Brazil, P.1, P.2; India B.1.617, B.1.617.1, B.1.617.2, B.1.617.3) in a second analysis cycle with a small number of additional tests on SARS-CoV-2 positive samples.
Logistics: population-scale proof-of-concept
As a proof-of-concept, the government of Vienna, Austria, established a large, state-wide screening program which demonstrates the feasibility of such an approach (‘Alles gurgelt’)5. The aim of this program is the early interruption of infection chains, as well as tracing and prevention of spread of SARS CoV-2. For this purpose, a novel logistics concept was developed based on self-collected mouth wash samples. Self-collection of samples is done with support of a dedicated Web App, which guides the user through the procedure and validates their identity by verification of an identity card and video-surveillance of the procedure (www.lead-horizon.com), so that quality and reproducibility of sample-taking can be ensured.
The testing program is based on the promise that a reliable PCR test result is available for every inhabitant within a maximum of 24 hours after sample collection. All inhabitants were invited to participate in this program twice a week as regular testing makes sure that persons who have tested positive for COVID-19 can be quarantined and chains of infection interrupted early. Test kits for the validated self-collection of mouth-wash samples are distributed through local drug stores, which makes PCR tests available to all inhabitants within reach of a 5-minute walk. Following packaging in biohazard safe, sealed transport bags and cardboard packaging, samples are returned for transport to the laboratory at drug and grocery stores in Vienna. Sampling devices are made accessible free of charge to all people living in Vienna, tourists and commuters. The successful program is currently being expanded in more pilot regions of Austria for further evaluation of a full, nation-wide coverage of the program. As an alternative, a similar kit based on nasal swabs, which might be easier to interface with the high throughput testing pipeline described here, has been developed at Alacris Theranostics. See Figure 2 for an outline of how the population-scale testing works in practice.
Modelling the impact of population-scale testing in Germany
To model the impact of repetitive population wide (or near-population-wide) testing, we show the effect this approach could have had on the development of the pandemic in Germany if population-wide tests were started last autumn, using a model based on the established Kermack-McKendrick theory, adjusted to COVID-19. The model and its validation are described in ref. 12. Besides reflecting changes of contact rates, the effects of vaccination and the development of new mutants can be built into the model.
To simplify the analysis, it is assumed that tests are 100% reliable and a certain percentage of the population is tested on a daily basis (see Kreck & Scholz12). Depending on how large this percentage is, one can predict what would have happened in Germany if such tests would have started last autumn (October 15th 2020); a realistic scenario, since there would have been enough time to develop the required technology and infrastructure, if these developments had been supported by the government or private sources. In Figure 3, the numbers of daily new registered infected are displayed and corresponding R-values are shown, under the assumption that 60%, 80% or 100% of the population agreed to be tested on a daily basis using PCR and antigen-based tests, respectively.
The scenarios assume the following conditions:
- PCR tests are effective the day people get infectious, with a sensitivity of 90%. False positives are ignored for the model calculation (corresponding to a hypothetical specificity of 100%).
- Antigen-based tests are effective four days after a person is infectious and have a sensitivity of 70%.
- There are no extra restrictions compared to October 2020, i.e. the assumption is that the contact rates are more or less unchanged since this time. In reality, in the autumn and winter further strong restrictions were imposed in Germany; it is shown here that such restrictions would not have been necessary if the test regime had started.
- Vaccinations started in Germany from January 2021 onwards (as in reality).
- The UK virus variant (B.1.1.7), which is assumed to be 50% more transmissible, began to act from January 2021 onwards, dominating in early April 2021.
If the sensitivity falls moderately below 90% (the values assumed for the model calculation) the picture does not change qualitatively. A specificity of 100% may be assumed for the model, because the specificity of PCR reactions is very high (two specific primers, one specific probe), and can be further increased by, e.g. running a second cycle of analysis to identify the specific variant. Technical errors (cross-contamination of samples etc.) can be excluded by appropriate controls. In the calculation, effective enforcement of quarantine rules is assumed. Low levels of non-compliance would effectively decrease the overall participation rate, without major effect on the result. The model calculations therefore demonstrate convincingly the effectiveness of mass tests under only moderate contact restrictions like those in Germany in early October 2020. Even the rise of the new UK virus variant in early 2021 could have been kept under control by mass testing using highly sensitive PCR based tests, suppressing the R factor from 1.5 before the onset of testing to very low levels for a high degree of participation. Even low levels of participation (60%) are sufficient to reach R values far below 1, and therefore to suppress the pandemic. This is not the case at all if we model the effect of the antigen rapid tests, which are less sensitive, but also, more importantly, only become positive after onset of symptoms fairly late in the infectious phase. In this case, only 100% participation in daily testing would have reduced the R factor slightly below 1, only to return to values above 1, when the UK variant arrived. The drop in new infections shown in Fig. 3 for the 80% and 60% scenarios would have been due to ‘herd immunity’ after very high levels of infection.