Sars-Cov-2 antigen tests predict infectivity based on viral culture: comparison of antigen, PCR viral load, and viral culture testing on a large sample cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To define the relationship of SARS-CoV-2 antigen, viral load determined by RT-qPCR, and viral culture detection. Presumptively, viral culture can provide a surrogate measure for infectivity of sampled individuals and thereby inform how and where to most appropriately deploy antigen and nucleic acid amplification-based diagnostic testing modalities. METHODS: We compared the antigen testing results from three lateral flow and one microfluidics assay to viral culture detection and viral load determination performed in parallel in up to 189 nasopharyngeal swab samples positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sample viral loads, determined by RT-qPCR, were distributed across the range of viral load values observed in our testing population. RESULTS: Antigen tests were predictive of viral culture positivity, with the LumiraDx microfluidics method showing enhanced sensitivity (90%; 95% CI 83-94%) compared with the BD Veritor (74%, 95% CI 65-81%), CareStart (74%, 95% CI 65-81%) and Oscar Corona (74%, 95% CI 65-82%) lateral flow antigen tests. Antigen and viral culture positivity were also highly correlated with sample viral load, with areas under the receiver operator characteristic curves of 0.94 to 0.97 and 0.92, respectively. A viral load threshold of 100 000 copies/mL was 95% sensitive (95% CI, 90-98%) and 72% specific (95% CI, 60-81%) for predicting viral culture positivity. Adjusting for sample dilution inherent in our study design, sensitivities of antigen tests were ≥95% for detection of viral culture positive samples with viral loads >106 genome copies/mL, although specificity of antigen testing was imperfect. DISCUSSION: Antigen testing results and viral culture were correlated. For culture positive samples, the sensitivity of antigen tests was high at high viral loads that are likely associated with significant infectivity. Therefore, our data provides support for use of antigen testing in ruling out infectivity at the time of sampling.

Visualizing omicron: COVID-19 deaths vs. cases over time.

For most of the COVID-19 pandemic, the daily focus has been on the number of cases, and secondarily, deaths. The most recent wave was caused by the omicron variant, first identified at the end of 2021 and the dominant variant through the first part of 2022. South Africa, one of the first countries to experience and report data regarding omicron (variant 21.K), reported far fewer deaths, even as the number of reported cases rapidly eclipsed previous peaks. However, as the omicron wave has progressed, time series show that it has been markedly different from prior waves. To more readily visualize the dynamics of cases and deaths, it is natural to plot deaths per million against cases per million. Unlike the time-series plots of cases or deaths that have become daily features of pandemic updates during the pandemic, which have time as the x-axis, in a plot of deaths vs. cases, time is implicit, and is indicated in relation to the starting point. Here we present and briefly examine such plots from a number of countries and from the world as a whole, illustrating how they summarize features of the pandemic in ways that illustrate how, in most places, the omicron wave is very different from those that came before. Code for generating these plots for any country is provided in an automatically updating GitHub repository.

Verification of the Abbott Alinity m Resp-4-Plex assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and respiratory syncytial virus.

COVID-19 symptomology may overlap with other circulating respiratory viruses that may also cause severe disease and for which there are specific and potentially life-saving treatments. The Abbott Alinity m Resp-4-Plex assay is a multiplex PCR assay that simultaneously detects and differentiates infection with SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). We characterized its accuracy, precision, and analytical sensitivity. All were found to be robust for measures examined. In the context of sample-to-answer, near random access automation on the Alinity m platform, we believe that the Resp-4-Plex assay offers significant utility in addressing the current needs of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and future needs during anticipated endemic circulation of SARS-CoV-2 with other respiratory viruses.

Nasal Swab Performance by Collection Timing, Procedure, and Method of Transport for Patients with SARS-CoV-2.

The urgent need for large-scale diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 has prompted interest in sample collection methods of sufficient sensitivity to replace nasopharynx (NP) sampling. Nasal swab samples are an attractive alternative; however, previous studies have disagreed over how nasal sampling performs relative to NP sampling. Here, we compared nasal versus NP specimens collected by health care workers in a cohort of individuals clinically suspected of COVID-19 as well as SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription (RT)-PCR-positive outpatients undergoing follow-up. We compared subjects being seen for initial evaluation versus follow-up, two different nasal swab collection protocols, and three different transport conditions, including traditional viral transport media (VTM) and dry swabs, on 307 total study participants. We compared categorical results and viral loads to those from standard NP swabs collected at the same time from the same patients. All testing was performed by RT-PCR on the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 RealTime emergency use authorization (EUA) (limit of detection [LoD], 100 copies viral genomic RNA/ml transport medium). We found low concordance overall, with Cohen's kappa (κ) of 0.49, with high concordance only for subjects with very high viral loads. We found medium concordance for testing at initial presentation (κ = 0.68) and very low concordance for follow-up testing (κ = 0.27). Finally, we show that previous reports of high concordance may have resulted from measurement using assays with sensitivity of ≥1,000 copies/ml. These findings suggest nasal-swab testing be used for situations in which viral load is expected to be high, as we demonstrate that nasal swab testing is likely to miss patients with low viral loads.

Verification of the Abbott Alinity m Resp-4-Plex Assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and respiratory syncytial virus

COVID-19 symptomology may overlap with other circulating respiratory viruses that may also cause severe disease and for which there are specific and potentially life-saving treatments. The Abbott Alinity m Resp-4-Plex assay is a multiplex PCR assay that simultaneously detects and differentiates infection with SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). We characterized its accuracy, precision, and analytical sensitivity. All were found to be robust for measures examined. In the context of sample-to-answer, near random access automation on the Alinity m platform, we believe that the Resp-4-Plex assay offers significant utility in addressing the current needs of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and future needs during anticipated endemic circulation of SARS-CoV-2 with other respiratory viruses.

Cooperation under Pressure: Lessons from the COVID-19 Swab Crisis.

The early months of the COVID-19 pandemic were marked by a desperate need for nasopharyngeal swabs to test for SARS-CoV-2, with demand far outstripping supply. April marked the anniversary of an unprecedented nationwide multibusiness/multihospital partnership that successfully met this need, a fitting occasion to review lessons learned. Here, I briefly recount the key events, constraints, and thought processes surrounding the effort in order to better inform responses to future crises. Overall, the experience was a strong validation of Joy's Law and illustrated the utility of recognizing temptations to avoid, in order to reap the rewards of cooperation. I conclude by summarizing lessons learned.

Saliva is Comparable to Nasopharyngeal Swabs for Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

The continued need for molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the potential for self-collected saliva as an alternative to nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs for sample acquisition led us to compare saliva to NP swabs in an outpatient setting without restrictions to avoid food, drink, smoking, or tooth-brushing. A total of 385 pairs of NP and saliva specimens were obtained, the majority from individuals presenting for initial evaluation, and were tested on two high-sensitivity reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) platforms, the Abbott m2000 and Abbott Alinity m (both with limits of detection [LoD] of 100 copies of viral RNA/ml). Concordance between saliva and NP swabs was excellent overall (Cohen's κ = 0.93) for both initial and follow-up testing, for both platforms, and for specimens treated with guanidinium transport medium as preservative as well as for untreated saliva (κ = 0.88 to 0.95). Viral loads were on average 16× higher in NP specimens than saliva specimens, suggesting that only the relatively small fraction of outpatients (∼8% in this study) who present with very low viral loads (<1,600 copies/ml from NP swabs) would be missed by testing saliva instead of NP swabs when using sensitive testing platforms. Special attention was necessary to ensure leak-resistant specimen collection and transport. The advantages of self-collection of saliva, without behavioral restrictions, will likely outweigh a minor potential decrease in clinical sensitivity in individuals less likely to pose an infectious risk to others for many real-world scenarios, especially for initial testing. IMPORTANCE In general, the most accurate COVID-19 testing is hands-on and uncomfortable, requiring trained staff and a "brain-tickling" nasopharyngeal swab. Saliva would be much easier on both fronts, since patients could collect it themselves, and it is after all just spit. However, despite much interest, it remains unclear how well saliva performs in real-world settings when just using it in place of an NP swab without elaborate or cumbersome restrictions about not eating/drinking before testing, etc. Also, almost all studies of COVID-19 testing, whether of NP swabs, saliva, or otherwise, have been restricted to reporting results in the abstruse units of "CT values," which only mean something in the context of a specific assay and testing platform. Here, we compared saliva versus NP swabs in a real-world setting without restriction and report all results in natural units-the amount of virus being shed-showing that saliva is essentially just as good as NP swabs.

The Limit of Detection Matters: The Case for Benchmarking Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Testing.

BACKGROUND: Resolving the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires diagnostic testing to determine which individuals are infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The current gold standard is to perform reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on nasopharyngeal samples. Best-in-class assays demonstrate a limit of detection (LoD) of approximately 100 copies of viral RNA per milliliter of transport media. However, LoDs of currently approved assays vary over 10,000-fold. Assays with higher LoDs will miss infected patients. However, the relative clinical sensitivity of these assays remains unknown. METHODS: Here we model the clinical sensitivities of assays based on their LoD. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were obtained from 4700 first-time positive patients using the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 Emergency Use Authorization test. We derived viral loads from Ct based on PCR principles and empiric analysis. A sliding scale relationship for predicting clinical sensitivity was developed from analysis of viral load distribution relative to assay LoD. RESULTS: Ct values were reliably repeatable over short time testing windows, providing support for use as a tool to estimate viral load. Viral load was found to be relatively evenly distributed across log10 bins of incremental viral load. Based on these data, each 10-fold increase in LoD is expected to lower assay sensitivity by approximately 13%. CONCLUSIONS: The assay LoD meaningfully impacts clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 tests. The highest LoDs on the market will miss a majority of infected patients. Assays should therefore be benchmarked against a universal standard to allow cross-comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection methods.

Open Development and Clinical Validation of Multiple 3D-Printed Nasopharyngeal Collection Swabs: Rapid Resolution of a Critical COVID-19 Testing Bottleneck.

The pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a severe international shortage of the nasopharyngeal swabs that are required for collection of optimal specimens, creating a critical bottleneck blocking clinical laboratories' ability to perform high-sensitivity virological testing for SARS-CoV-2. To address this crisis, we designed and executed an innovative, cooperative, rapid-response translational-research program that brought together health care workers, manufacturers, and scientists to emergently develop and clinically validate new swabs for immediate mass production by 3D printing. We performed a multistep preclinical evaluation of 160 swab designs and 48 materials from 24 companies, laboratories, and individuals, and we shared results and other feedback via a public data repository (http://github.com/rarnaout/Covidswab/). We validated four prototypes through an institutional review board (IRB)-approved clinical trial that involved 276 outpatient volunteers who presented to our hospital's drive-through testing center with symptoms suspicious for COVID-19. Each participant was swabbed with a reference swab (the control) and a prototype, and SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) results were compared. All prototypes displayed excellent concordance with the control (κ = 0.85 to 0.89). Cycle threshold (CT ) values were not significantly different between each prototype and the control, supporting the new swabs' noninferiority (Mann-Whitney U [MWU] test, P > 0.05). Study staff preferred one of the prototypes over the others and preferred the control swab overall. The total time elapsed between identification of the problem and validation of the first prototype was 22 days. Contact information for ordering can be found at http://printedswabs.org Our experience holds lessons for the rapid development, validation, and deployment of new technology for this pandemic and beyond.

Open Development and Clinical Validation of Multiple 3D-Printed Sample-Collection Swabs: Rapid Resolution of a Critical COVID-19 Testing Bottleneck.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused a severe international shortage of the nasopharyngeal swabs that are required for collection of optimal specimens, creating a critical bottleneck in the way of high-sensitivity virological testing for COVID-19. To address this crisis, we designed and executed an innovative, radically cooperative, rapid-response translational-research program that brought together healthcare workers, manufacturers, and scientists to emergently develop and clinically validate new swabs for immediate mass production by 3D printing. We performed a rigorous multi-step preclinical evaluation on 160 swab designs and 48 materials from 24 companies, laboratories, and individuals, and shared results and other feedback via a public data repository (http://github.com/rarnaout/Covidswab/). We validated four prototypes through an institutional review board (IRB)-approved clinical trial that involved 276 outpatient volunteers who presented to our hospital's drive-through testing center with symptoms suspicious for COVID-19. Each participant was swabbed with a reference swab (the control) and a prototype, and SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results were compared. All prototypes displayed excellent concordance with the control (κ=0.85-0.89). Cycle-threshold (Ct) values were not significantly different between each prototype and the control, supporting the new swabs' non-inferiority (Mann-Whitney U [MWU] p>0.05). Study staff preferred one of the prototypes over the others and the control swab overall. The total time elapsed between identification of the problem and validation of the first prototype was 22 days. The swabs are available to order (http://printedswabs.org). Our experience holds lessons for the rapid development, validation, and deployment of new technology for this pandemic and beyond.