Evaluation of Various Alternative Economical and High Throughput SARS-CoV-2 Testing Methods within Resource-Limited Settings.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak posed a challenge for diagnostic laboratories worldwide, with low-middle income countries (LMICs) being the most affected. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the gold standard method for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the challenge with this method is that it is expensive, which has resulted in under-testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection in many LMICs. Hence, this study aimed to compare and evaluate alternative methods for the mass testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection in laboratories with limited resources to identify cost-effective, faster, and accurate alternatives to the internationally approved kits. A total of 50 residual nasopharyngeal swab samples were used for evaluation and comparison between internationally approved kits (Thermo Fisher PureLink™ RNA Isolation Kit and Thermo Fisher TaqPath™ COVID-19 Assay Kit) and alternative methods (three RNA extraction and four commercial SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay kits) in terms of the cost analysis, diagnostic accuracy, and turnaround time. In terms of performance, all of the alternative RNA extraction methods evaluated were comparable to the internationally approved kits but were more cost-effective (Lucigen QuickExtract™ RNA Extraction Kit, Bosphore EX-Tract Dry Swab RNA Solution and Sonicator method) and four commercial SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay kits (Nucleic Acid COVID-19 Test Kit (SARS-CoV-2), abTES