In the middle of the COVID-19 epidemic, flaws in the SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic
test were identified by the impending supply shortages of nasopharyngeal swabs and nucleic acid isolation and purification kits. The ASU Biodesign Clinical Testing Lab (ABCTL), which converted from a research lab to SARS-CoV-2 testing lab, was not an exception to these shortages, but the consequences were greater due to its significant testing load in the state of Arizona. In response to the shortages, researchers at The Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, at the Yale School of Public Health created SalivaDirect method, which is an epidemic effective test, that accounts for limitations of materials, accessibility to specialized lab equipment, time per test, and cost per test. SalivaDirect simplified the diagnostic process by collecting samples via saliva and skipping the nucleic acid extraction and purification, and did it in a way that resulted in a highly sensitive limit of detection of 6-12 SARS-CoV-2 copies/μL with a minimal decrease in positive test agreement.
The ASU Biodesign Clinical Testing Laboratory began in March 2020 after the severe acute respiratory syndrome, coronavirus 2, began spreading throughout the world. ASU worked towards implementing its own efficient way of testing for the virus, in order to assist the university but also keep the communities around it safe. By developing its own strategy for COVID-19 testing, ASU was on the forefront of research by developing new ways to test for the virus. This process began when research labs at ASU were quickly converted into clinical testing laboratories, which used saliva testing to develop swift COVID-19 diagnostic tests for the Arizona community. The lab developed more accurate and time efficient results, while also converting Nasopharyngeal tests to saliva tests. Not only did this allow for fewer amounts of resources required, but more individuals were able to get tested at faster rates. The ASU Biodesign Clinical Testing Laboratory (ABCTL) was able to accomplish this through the adaptation of previous machines and personnel to fit the testing needs of the community. In the future, the ABCTL will continue to adapt to the ever-changing needs of the community in regards to the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. The research collected throughout the past year following the breakout of the COVID-19 pandemic is a reflection of the impressive strategy ASU has created to keep its communities safe, while continuously working towards improving not only the testing sites and functions, but also the ways in which an institution approaches and manages an unfortunate impact on diverse communities.
This thesis project is part of a larger collaboration documenting the history of the ASU Biodesign Clinical Testing Laboratory (ABCTL). There are many different aspects that need to be considered when transforming to a clinical testing laboratory. This includes the different types of tests performed in the laboratory. In addition to the diagnostic polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that is performed detecting the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), antibody testing is also performed in clinical laboratories. Antibody testing is used to detect a previous infection. Antibodies are produced as part of the immune response against SARS-CoV-2. There are many different forms of antibody tests and their sensitives and specificities have been examined and reviewed in the literature. Antibody testing can be used to determine the seroprevalence of the disease which can inform policy decisions regarding public health strategies. The results from antibody testing can also be used for creating new therapeutics like vaccines. The ABCTL recognizes the shifting need of the community to begin testing for previous infections of SARS-CoV-2 and is developing new forms of antibody testing that can meet them.
This thesis project is the result of close collaboration with the Arizona State University Biodesign Clinical Testing Laboratory (ABCTL) to document the characteristics of saliva as a test sample, preanalytical considerations, and how the ABCTL utilized saliva testing to develop swift COVID-19 diagnostic tests for the Arizona community. As of April 2021, there have been over 130 million recorded cases of COVID-19 globally, with the United States taking the lead with approximately 31.5 million cases. Developing highly accurate and timely diagnostics has been an important need of our country that the ABCTL has had tremendous success in delivering. Near the start of the pandemic, the ABCTL utilized saliva as a testing sample rather than nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs that were limited in supply, required highly trained medical personnel, and were generally uncomfortable for participants. Results from literature across the globe showed how saliva performed just as well as the NP swabs (the golden standard) while being an easier test to collect and analyze. Going forward, the ABCTL will continue to develop high quality diagnostic tools and adapt to the ever-evolving needs our communities face regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.
Level of education had little impact on whether or not women received the nutrition packet. Of those women with no education, 63.1% received the packet. Of those with any education, 63.9% got the packet.
In contrast, distance was strongly correlated with whether or not women received the packet. For example, of the women living within 200 meters of the health center, 93.2% received a nutrition packet. Of the women living between 250 meters and one kilometer of the health center, 68.4% received a nutrition packet. Of the women living over one kilometer from the health center, only 25% received a nutrition packet. The relationship between uptake of packets and women’s perception of distance to the health center was also explored. Out of 50 women who did not receive the packet, all of the women who said there was no health center in their village did live more than one kilometer from a health center. Of the women who lived between 250 meters and one kilometer from the health center, 40% felt it was too far. Of the women who lived more than a kilometer from the health center, 66.7% felt it was too far and 29.6% said there was no health center in their village. Again, it does not appear that ‘too far’ is just a default reason for women, but that actual distance, more so than education, is a major contributing factor in their ability to take the nutrition packet. These findings suggest that improving access to supplemental nutrition packets at the village level may increase uptake by the women.
