Efficacy of ultra-short, response-guided sofosbuvir and daclatasvir therapy for Hepatitis C: a single arm mechanistic pilot study (preprint)

ABSTRACT Background WHO has called for research into predictive factors for selecting persons who could be successfully treated with shorter durations of direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for Hepatitis C. We evaluated early virological response as a means of shortening treatment and explored host, viral and pharmacokinetic contributors to treatment outcome. Methods Duration of sofosbuvir and daclatasvir (SOF/DCV) was determined according to day 2 (D2) virologic response for HCV genotype (gt) 1- or 6-infected adults in Vietnam with mild liver disease. Participants received 4 or 8 weeks treatment according to whether D2 HCV RNA was above or below 500 IU/ml (standard duration is 12 weeks). Primary endpoint was sustained virological response (SVR12). Those failing therapy were retreated with 12 weeks SOF/DCV. Host IFNL4 genotype and viral sequencing was performed at baseline, with repeat viral sequencing if virological rebound was observed. Levels of SOF, its inactive metabolite GS-331007 and DCV were measured on day 0 and 28. Results Of 52 adults enrolled, 34 received 4 weeks SOF/DCV, 17 got 8 weeks and one withdrew. SVR12 was achieved in 21/34 (62%) treated for 4 weeks, and 17/17 (100%) treated for 8 weeks. Overall 38/51 (75%) were cured with first-line treatment (mean duration 37 days). Despite a high prevalence of putative NS5A-inhibitor resistance associated substitutions (RAS), all first-line treatment failures cured after retreatment (13/13). We found no evidence treatment failure was associated with host IFNL4 genotype, viral subtype, baseline RAS or DCV levels. SOF metabolite levels were higher in those failing 4-week therapy. Conclusions Shortened SOF/DCV therapy, with retreatment if needed, reduces DAA use while maintaining high cure rates. D2 virologic response alone does not adequately predict SVR12 with 4 weeks treatment. Funding Funded by the Medical Research Council (grant MR/P025064/1) and The Global Challenges Research Fund (Wellcome Trust Grant 206/296/Z/17/Z).) Clinical trial number ISRCTN17100273

A new combination testing methodology to identify accurate and economical point-of-care testing strategies (preprint)

ABSTRACT Background Quick, cheap and accurate point-of-care testing is urgently needed to enable frequent, large-scale testing to contain COVID-19. Lateral flow tests for antigen and antibody detection are an obvious candidate for use in community-wide testing, because they are quick and cheap relative to lab-processed tests. However, their low accuracy has limited their adoption. We develop a new methodology to increase the diagnostic accuracy of a combination of cheap, quick and inaccurate index tests with correlated or discordant outcomes, and illustrate its performance on commercially available lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) for Sars-CoV-2 antibody detection. Methods and Findings We analyze laboratory test outcomes of 300 serum samples from health care workers detected with PCR-confirmed SARS-Cov-2 infection at least 21 days prior to sample collection, and 500 pre-pandemic serum samples, from a national seroprevalence survey, tested using eight LFIAs (Abbott, Biosure/Mologic, Orientgene-Menarini, Fortress, Biopanda I, Biopanda II, SureScreen and Wondfo) and Hybrid DABA as reference test. For each of 14 two-test combinations (e.g., Abbott, Fortress) and 16 three-test combinations (e.g., Abbott, Fortress, Biosure/Mologic) used on at least 100 positive and 100 negative samples, we classify an outcome sequence – e.g., (+,–) for (Abbott, Fortress) – as positive if its combination positive predictive value (CPPV) exceeds a given threshold, set between 0 and 1. Our main outcome measures are the sensitivity and specificity of different classification rules for classifying the outcomes of a combination test. We define testing possibility frontiers which represent sensitivity and false positive rates for different thresholds. The envelope of frontiers further enables test selection. The eight index tests individually meet neither the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s 98% sensitivity and 98% specificity criterion, nor the US Center for Disease Control’s 99.5% specificity criterion. Among these eight tests, the highest single-test LFIA specificity is 99.4% (with a sensitivity of 65.2%) and the highest single-test LFIA sensitivity is 93.4% (with a specificity of 97.4%). Using our methodology, a two-test combination meets the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s criterion, achieving sensitivity of 98.4% and specificity of 98.0%. While two-test combinations meeting the US Center for Disease Control’s 99.5% specificity criterion have sensitivity below 83.6%, a three-test combination delivers a specificity of 99.6% and a sensitivity of 95.8%. Conclusions Current CDC guidelines suggest combining tests, noting that “performance of orthogonal testing algorithms has not been systematically evaluated” and highlighting discordant outcomes. Our methodology combines available LFIAs to meet desired accuracy criteria, by identifying testing possibility frontiers which encompass benchmarks, enabling cost savings. Our methodology applies equally to antigen testing and can greatly expand testing capacity through combining less accurate tests, especially for use cases needing quick, accurate tests, e.g., entry to public spaces such as airports, nursing homes or hospitals.

CovidNudge: diagnostic accuracy of a novel lab-free point-of-care diagnostic for SARS-CoV-2 (preprint)

Background Access to rapid diagnosis is key to the control and management of SARS-CoV-2. Reverse Transcriptase- Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) testing usually requires a centralised laboratory and significant infrastructure. We describe the development and diagnostic accuracy assessment of a novel, rapid point-of-care RT-PCR test, the DnaNudge platform CovidNudge test, which requires no laboratory handling or sample pre-processing. Methods Nasopharyngeal swabs are inserted directly into a cartridge which contains all reagents and components required for RT-PCR reactions, including multiple technical replicates of seven SARS-CoV-2 gene targets (rdrp1, rdrp2, e-gene, n-gene, n1, n2 and n3) and human ribonuclease P (RNaseP) as a positive control. Between April and May 2020, swab samples were tested in parallel using the CovidNudge direct-to-cartridge platform and standard laboratory RT-PCR using swabs in viral transport medium. Samples were collected from three groups: self-referred healthcare workers with suspected COVID-19 (Group 1, n=280/386; 73%); patients attending the emergency department with suspected COVID-19 (Group 2, n=15/386; 4%) and hospital inpatient admissions with or without suspected COVID-19 (Group 3, n=91/386; 23%). Results Of 386 paired samples tested across all groups, 67 tested positive on the CovidNudge platform and 71 with standard laboratory RT-PCR. The sensitivity of the test varied by group (Group 1 93% [84-98%], Group 2 100% [48-100%] and Group 3 100% [29-100%], giving an average sensitivity of 94.4% (95% confidence interval 86-98%) and an overall specificity of 100% (95%CI 99-100%; Group 1 100% [98-100%]; Group 2 100% [69-100%] and Group 3 100% [96-100%]). Point of care testing performance was comparable during a period of high (25%) and low (3%) background prevalence. Amplification of the viral nucleocapsid (n1, n2, n3) targets were most sensitive for detection of SARS-CoV2, with the assay able to detect 1x104 viral particles in a single swab. Conclusions The CovidNudge platform offers a sensitive, specific and rapid point of care test for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 without laboratory handling or sample pre-processing. The implementation of such a device could be used to enable rapid decisions for clinical care and testing programs.