Comparison of 6 SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Methods and Correlation With the Cycle Threshold Distribution in Clinical Specimens.

BACKGROUND: The detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in patient samples is of critical importance in the management of patients and monitoring transmission in the population. However, data on the analytical performance characteristics for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical specimens between individual targets within the same platform, and among different analytical platforms, are limited. METHODS: Here we evaluated the performance of 6 different sample-to-answer SARS-CoV-2 detection methods-Roche cobas 6800, Cepheid GeneXpert, Diasorin Simplexa, Luminex Aries emergency use authorization (EUA), Luminex Aries research use only (RUO), and bioMérieux BioFire-in clinical specimens with a range of viral loads. RESULTS: The positive percentage agreement between the Roche cobas 6800 and GeneXpert was 100%, Diasorin 95%, Aries EUA 74%, Aries RUO 83%, and BioFire 97%. Notably, in samples with cycle threshold (Ct) values below 30 for the E gene on the Roche cobas 6800 platform, we found 100% positive agreement among all platforms. Given these results, we examined the distribution of over 10 000 Ct values of all positive specimens from individuals at our institution on the Roche cobas platform. Nearly 60% of specimens from asymptomatic individuals had a PCR Ct value >30 as measured using the cobas 6800 assay E gene. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate performance characteristics between different platforms by Ct value and provide data regarding the distribution of viral RNA present in positive specimens.

Multiplatform Assessment of Saliva for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection in Symptomatic Healthcare Personnel and Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Saliva has garnered great interest as an alternative specimen type for molecular detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Data are limited on the relative performance of different molecular methods using saliva specimens and the relative sensitivity of saliva to nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. METHODS: To address the gap in knowledge, we enrolled symptomatic healthcare personnel (n = 250) from Barnes-Jewish Hospital/Washington University Medical Center and patients presenting to the Emergency Department with clinical symptoms compatible with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; n = 292). We collected paired saliva specimens and NP swabs. The Lyra SARS-CoV-2 assay (Quidel) was evaluated on paired saliva and NP samples. Subsequently we compared the Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit (Diasorin) and a modified SalivaDirect (Yale) assay on a subset of positive and negative saliva specimens. RESULTS: The positive percent agreement (PPA) between saliva and NP samples using the Lyra SARS-CoV-2 assay was 63.2%. Saliva samples had higher SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold values compared to NP swabs (P < 0.0001). We found a 76.47% (26/34) PPA for Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit on saliva and a 67.6% (23/34) PPA for SalivaDirect compared to NP swab results. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate molecular assays have variability in performance for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.

Evaluation of PCR cycle threshold values by patient population with the quidel lyra SARS-CoV-2 assay.

The Lyra SARS-CoV-2 assay was the primary method for molecular testing performed at Barnes-Jewish Healthcare System in St. Louis, Missouri during the initial COVID-19 surge from mid-March to late-April 2020. We performed a retrospective analysis of 1,043 positive Lyra SARS-CoV-2 results during these 36 days to investigate associations between cycle threshold (CT)  value and patient characteristics. Total RNA were extracted from NP or OP swabs using either the EasyMag or KingFisher automated extraction systems and quantified with RotorGene Q (Qiagen) or Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast Dx thermocyclers respectively. Notably, we found lower a significant median lower CT for samples tested on the KingFisher-ABI 7500 fastDX (KF/ABI) system compared to the EasyMag/RotorGene (EM/RGQ) platform. Since 77.5% of our tests were ran on the EM/RGQ pipeline we then perform additional analysis on these values and found that C T values in outpatient care settings compared to samples obtained in the emergency department or inpatient had significantly lower C T values. These collective findings suggests a difference in viral load amongst various patient populations.

The Effects of "Dry Swab" Incubation on SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Testing.

BACKGROUND: Widespread testing of SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in shortages of collection devices and transport media. We evaluated the stability of flocked swabs inoculated with SARS-CoV-2-containing specimen incubated dry (i.e., without transport medium) at room temperature. METHODS: A pool of SARS-CoV-2 positive specimen was used to inoculate flocked swabs. Five swabs were placed immediately into universal transport media (UTM) following inoculation, and tested immediately (day 0). Fifteen of the swabs were placed into sterile 15-mL conical tubes and incubated at room temperature for 1, 2, or 7 days. Following incubation, swabs were hydrated in separate vials of UTM and tested. This protocol was repeated for viral transport media (VTM) and saline. As a comparison, a series of swabs was prepared and tested in parallel, but stored in the corresponding liquid transport media (UTM, VTM, or saline) and incubated at room temperature. Testing was performed at 1, 2, and 7 days postinoculation in duplicate. All molecular testing was performed using the Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay. RESULTS: All dry swabs tested on days 1, 2, and 7 provided results that were within 2 cycle thresholds (CTs) of the average CT values for swabs hydrated in the same media and tested on day 0. There was no statistical difference in CT values between swabs incubated in liquid media versus dry swabs incubated at room temperature prior to hydration in liquid media. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of "dry swabs" may simplify specimen collection, negate the need for liquid transport media, and mitigate safety risks while preserving the accuracy of testing.

Association between SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies and Commercial Serological Assays.

BACKGROUND: Commercially available SARS-CoV-2 serological assays based on different viral antigens have been approved for the qualitative determination of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. However, there are limited published data associating the results from commercial assays with neutralizing antibodies. METHODS: Sixty-six specimens from 48 patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 and a positive result by the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG, or EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays and 5 control specimens were analyzed for the presence of neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Correlation, concordance, positive percent agreement (PPA), and negative percent agreement (NPA) were calculated at several cutoffs. Results were compared in patients categorized by clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The correlation between SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titer (EC50) and the Roche, Abbott, and EUROIMMUN assays was 0.29, 0.47, and 0.46, respectively. At an EC50 of 1:32, the concordance kappa with Roche was 0.49 (95% CI; 0.23-0.75), with Abbott was 0.52 (0.28-0.77), and with EUROIMMUN was 0.61 (0.4-0.82). At the same neutralizing titer, the PPA and NPA for the Roche was 100% (94-100) and 56% (30-80); Abbott was 96% (88-99) and 69% (44-86); and EUROIMMUN was 91% (80-96) and 81% (57-93) for distinguishing neutralizing antibodies. Patients who were intubated, had cardiac injury, or acute kidney injury from COVID-19 infection had higher neutralizing titers relative to those with mild symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients generate an antibody response to multiple viral proteins such that the calibrator ratios on the Roche, Abbott, and EUROIMMUN assays are all associated with SARS-CoV-2 neutralization. Nevertheless, commercial serological assays have poor NPA for SARS-CoV-2 neutralization, making them imperfect proxies for neutralization.

Clinical Performance of Two SARS-CoV-2 Serologic Assays.

BACKGROUND: The recent emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in a rapid proliferation of serologic assays. However, little is known about their clinical performance. Here, we compared two commercial SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays. METHODS: 103 specimens from 48 patients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and 153 control specimens were analyzed using SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays by Abbott and EUROIMMUN (EI). Duration from symptom onset was determined by medical record review. Diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and concordance were calculated. RESULTS: The Abbott SARS-CoV-2 assay had a diagnostic specificity of 99.4% (95% CI; 96.41-99.98%), and sensitivity of 0.0% (95% CI; 0.00-26.47%) at <3 days post symptom onset, 30.0% (95% CI; 11.89-54.28) at 3-7d, 47.8% (95% CI; 26.82-69.41) at 8-13d and 93.8% (95% CI; 82.80-98.69) at ≥14d. Diagnostic specificity on the EI assay was 94.8% (95% CI; 89.96-97.72) if borderline results were considered positive and 96.7% (95% CI; 92.54-98.93) if borderline results were considered negative. The diagnostic sensitivity was 0.0% (95% CI; 0.00-26.47%) at <3d, 25.0% (95% CI; 8.66-49.10) at 3-7d, 56.5% (95% CI; 34.49-76.81) at 3-7d and 85.4% (95% CI; 72.24-93.93) at ≥14d if borderline results were considered positive. The qualitative concordance between the assays was 0.83 (95% CI; 0.75-0.91). CONCLUSION: The Abbott SARS-CoV-2 assay had fewer false positive and false negative results than the EI assay. However, diagnostic sensitivity was poor in both assays during the first 14 days of symptoms.