Current regulatory landscape for viral point-of-care testing in the United States.

Historically, the diagnosis of viral infections has been accomplished using a combination of laboratory-based methods, including culture, serology, antigen-based tests, and molecular (e.g., real-time PCR) assays. Although these methods provide an accurate way to detect viral pathogens, testing in a centralized laboratory may delay results, which could impact patient diagnosis and management. Point-of-care tests, including antigen- and molecular-based assays, have been developed to assist with the timely diagnosis of several viral infections, such as influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and COVID-19. Despite the ability of point-of-care tests to provide rapid results (i.e., <30 min), there are issues to consider prior to their routine use, including test performance and specific regulatory requirements. This review will provide a summary of the regulatory landscape of point-of-care tests for viral infections in the United States, and address important considerations such as site certification, training and inspection readiness.

Authorized SARS-CoV-2 molecular methods show wide variability in the limit of detection.

On February 29th, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued the first Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for a SARS-CoV-2 assay outside of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As of May 3rd, 2021, 289 total EUAs have been granted. Like influenza, there is no standard for defining limit of detection (LoD), but rather guidance that analytical sensitivity/LoD be established as the level that gives a 95% detection rate in at least 20 replicates. Here we compare the performance characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 tests receiving EUA by standardizing sensitivity to a common unit of measure and assess the variability in LoD between tests. Additionally, we looked at factors that may impact sensitivities due to lack of standardization of the test development process and compare results for a standardized reference panel for comparative analysis within a subset of EUA tests offered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Incidence of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection in Older Adults Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Little is known about the burden and outcomes of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-positive acute respiratory infection (ARI) in community-dwelling older adults. Objective: To assess the incidence of RSV-positive ARI before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to assess outcomes for RSV-positive ARI in older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a community-based cohort study of adults residing in southeast Minnesota that followed up with 2325 adults aged 50 years or older for 2 RSV seasons (2019-2021) to assess the incidence of RSV-positive ARI. The study assessed outcomes at 2 to 4 weeks, 6 to 7 months, and 12 to 13 months after RSV-positive ARI. Exposure: RSV-positive and -negative ARI. Main Outcomes and Measures: RSV status was the main study outcome. Incidence and attack rates of RSV-positive ARI were calculated during each RSV season, including before (October 2019 to April 2020) and during (October 2020 to April 2021) COVID-19 pandemic, and further calculated during non-RSV season (May to September 2021) for assessing impact of COVID-19. The self-reported quality of life (QOL) by Short-Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36) and physical functional measures (eg, 6-minute walk and spirometry) at each time point was assessed. Results: In this study of 2325 participants, the median (range) age of study participants was 67 (50-98) years, 1380 (59%) were female, and 2240 (96%) were non-Hispanic White individuals. The prepandemic incidence rate of RSV-positive ARI was 48.6 (95% CI, 36.9-62.9) per 1000 person-years with a 2.50% (95% CI, 1.90%-3.21%) attack rate. No RSV-positive ARI case was identified during the COVID-19 pandemic RSV season. Incidence of 10.2 (95% CI, 4.1-21.1) per 1000 person-years and attack rate of 0.42%; (95% CI, 0.17%-0.86%) were observed during the summer of 2021. Based on prepandemic RSV season results, participants with RSV-positive ARI (vs matched RSV-negative ARI) reported significantly lower QOL adjusted mean difference (limitations due to physical health, -16.7 [95% CI, -31.8 to -1.8]; fatigue, -8.4 [95% CI, -14.3 to -2.4]; and difficulty in social functioning, -11.9 [95% CI, -19.8 to -4.0] within 2 to 4 weeks after RSV-positive ARI [ie, short-term outcome]). Compared with participants with RSV-negative ARI, those with RSV-positive ARI also had lower QOL (fatigue: -4.0 [95% CI, -8.5 to -1.3]; difficulty in social functioning, -5.8 [95% CI, -10.3 to -1.3]; and limitation due to emotional problem, -7.0 [95% CI, -12.7 to -1.3] at 6 to 7 months after RSV-positive ARI [intermediate-term outcome]; fatigue, -4.4 [95% CI, -7.3 to -1.5]; difficulty in social functioning, -5.2 [95% CI, -8.7 to -1.7] and limitation due to emotional problem, -5.7 [95% CI, -10.7 to -0.6] at 12-13 months after RSV-positive ARI [ie, long-term outcomes]) independent of age, sex, race and/or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and high-risk comorbidities. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the burden of RSV-positive ARI in older adults during the pre-COVID-19 period was substantial. After a reduction of RSV-positive ARI incidence from October 2020 to April 2021, RSV-positive ARI re-emerged during the summer of 2021. RSV-positive ARI was associated with significant long-term lower QOL beyond the short-term lower QOL in older adults.

Analytic and Clinical Performance of Major Commercial Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Molecular Assays in the United States.

The rapid development of commercially available molecular assays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been essential in identifying positive cases and guiding state and national response plans. With over 200 SARS-CoV-2 molecular tests having received emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration, numerous studies have been conducted to evaluate these methods and compare their analytical and clinical performance. By applying the lessons learned from the rapid development of molecular assays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the diagnostic industry will be better prepared to respond to future outbreaks of novel infectious diseases.

Diagnosis and Monitoring of Viral Infections in the Transplant Population

Viral infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Due to their immunocompromised status, transplant recipients are at a higher risk for community-acquired and reactivated viral infections. Serologic screening prior to transplantation can assist with risk stratification of patients and guide decisions regarding the use of pre-emptive antiviral therapy. Following transplantation, molecular testing has become the most common method to detect viral infections, with histopathology of infected tissue often being required to confirm a diagnosis. Quantitative nucleic acid amplification tests have been the standard to detect and monitor viral infections in transplant patients;however, important challenges remain, including lack of standardization across many testing laboratories, limited availability of FDA-approved viral load assays, and the absence of universal viral load thresholds that can be used to diagnose disease and guide management decisions.

Utility of Follow-up Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Antigen Tests After Acute Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection Among Healthcare Personnel.

We report the utility of rapid antigen tests (RAgT) in a cohort of US healthcare personnel with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection who met symptom criteria to return to work at day 5 or later of isolation. In total, 11.9% of initial RAgT were negative. RAgT can be helpful to guide return to work decisions.

Decrease in Enteroviral Meningitis: An Unexpected Benefit of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Mitigation?

Enteroviral meningitis is seasonal, typically exhibiting a rise in prevalence in late summer/early fall. Based on clinical microbiology laboratory testing data of cerebrospinal fluid, the expected August/September/October peak in enteroviral meningitis did not occur in 2020, possibly related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mitigation strategies.

SARS-CoV-2 Testing Before International Airline Travel, December 2020 to May 2021.

Although there have been several case reports and simulation models of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission associated with air travel, there are limited data to guide testing strategy to minimize the risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and transmission onboard commercial aircraft. Among 9853 passengers with a negative SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test performed within 72 hours of departure from December 2020 through May 2021, five (0.05%) passengers with active SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified with rapid antigen tests and confirmed with rapid molecular test performed before and after an international flight from the United States to Italy. This translates to a case detection rate of 1 per 1970 travelers during a time of high prevalence of active infection in the United States. A negative molecular test for SARS-CoV-2 within 72 hours of international airline departure results in a low probability of active infection identified on antigen testing during commercial airline flight.

Can Testing Predict SARS-CoV-2 Infectivity? The Potential for Certain Methods To Be Surrogates for Replication-Competent Virus.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, molecular methods (e.g., real-time PCR) have been the primary means of diagnosing the disease. It is now well established that molecular tests can continue to detect SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA for weeks or months following the resolution of clinical illness. This has prompted public health agencies to recommend a symptom- and/or time-based strategy for discontinuation of isolation precautions, which, for hospitalized patients, results in significant use of personal protective equipment. Due to the inability of current molecular diagnostic assays to differentiate between the presence of remnant viral RNA (i.e., noninfectious) and replication-competent (i.e., infectious) virus, there has been interest in determining whether laboratory tests can be used to predict an individual's likelihood of transmitting the virus to others. This review will highlight what is currently known about the potential for existing assays, such as real-time PCR and antigen tests, to predict active viral infection. In addition, data on the performance of new methods, such as molecular tests targeting viral RNA intermediates (e.g., subgenomic RNA), will be discussed.

Association Between SARS-CoV-2 Cycle Threshold Values and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Cycle threshold (CT) values are correlated with the amount of viral nucleic acid in a sample and may be obtained from some qualitative real-time polymerase chain reaction tests used for diagnosis of most patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, CT values cannot be directly compared across assays, and they must be interpreted with caution as they are influenced by sample type, timing of sample collection, and assay design. Presently, the correlation between CT values and clinical outcomes is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies through April 19, 2021, that reported an association between CT values and hospitalization, disease severity, and mortality in patients ≥18 years old with SARS-CoV-2. A meta-analysis of 7 studies showed no significant difference in mean CT values between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients. Among hospitalized patients, those with CT values <25 had a high risk of more severe disease and mortality than patients with CT values >30 (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.70 to 3.13; and OR, 2.95; 95% CI, 2.19 to 3.96; respectively). The odds of increased disease severity and mortality were less pronounced in patients with CT values of 25-30 compared with >30.

Evaluation of Self-Collected Midturbinate Nasal Swabs and Saliva for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

Rapid and accurate diagnostic testing is essential to bring the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic to an end. As the demand for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing continues to increase amid supply shortages, many laboratories have investigated the use of sources other than nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. Saliva and midturbinate (MT) nasal swabs are attractive alternatives, as they allow for self-collection and are well accepted by patients. Saliva also requires limited consumables. We compared the performance of health care provider-collected NP swabs, patient-collected MT swabs, and patient-collected saliva specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection using a laboratory-developed PCR assay that had received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA. Of 281 total evaluable samples, 33 (11.7%) NP swabs, 33 (11.7%) MT swabs, and 32 (11.4%) saliva specimens were positive for SARS-CoV-2 following resolution of discordant results. Compared to NP swabs, saliva exhibited a sensitivity of 90.9% (30/33) and specificity of 99.2% (246/248), while patient-collected MT swabs exhibited a sensitivity of 93.9% (31/33) and specificity of 99.2% (246/248). When comparing to the consensus standard, the sensitivity was found to be 100% (31/31) for both NP and MT swabs and 96.8% (30/31) for saliva specimens, while specificity was the same in both NP swabs and saliva specimens (98.8% [247/250]) and 99.2% (248/250) for MT swabs. Pretreatment of saliva with proteinase K and heating for 15 min prior to extraction reduced the invalid rate from 26.7% (52/195) to 0% (0/195). These data show that midturbinate nasal swabs and saliva are suitable sources for self-collection in individuals who require routine monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Performance of three polymerase chain reaction-based assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in different upper respiratory tract specimens.

To meet the testing demands and overcome supply chain issues during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, many clinical laboratories validated multiple SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing platforms. Here, we compare three different molecular assays for SARS-CoV-2 that received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In order to determine the agreement among Roche cobas® SARS-CoV-2 Test (Cobas), Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay (ART), and Mayo Clinic Laboratory SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection Assay (Mayo LDT), 100 each of anterior nares (AN), nasopharyngeal (NP), oropharyngeal (OP), and NP+OP swabs were tested on each platform. The consensus result was defined as agreement by 2 or more methods. Furthermore, 30 positive NP swabs from each molecular platform (n = 90 total) were tested on the three platforms to determine the PPA among positive samples. ART platform called more specimens positive than the other two platforms. All three assays performed with greater than 90% agreement for NP specimens throughout the study.

Evaluation of the Cue Health point-of-care COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification) test at a community drive through collection center.

Point-of-care (POC) tests are in high demand in order to facilitate rapid care decisions for patients suspected of SARS-CoV-2. We conducted a clinical validation study of the Cue Health POC nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) using the Cue lower nasal swab, compared to a reference NAAT using standard nasopharyngeal swab, in 292 symptomatic and asymptomatic outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 detection in a community drive through collection setting. Positive percent agreement between Cue COVID-19 and reference SARS-CoV-2 test was 91.7% (22 of 24); or 95.7% (22 of 23) when one patient with no tie-breaker method was excluded. Negative percent agreement was 98.4% (239 of 243), and there were 25 (8.6%) invalid or canceled results. The Cue COVID-19 test demonstrated very good positive and negative percent agreement with central laboratory tests and will be useful in settings where accurate POC testing is needed to facilitate management of patients suspected of COVID-19.

Adherence to Public Health Measures Mitigates the Risk of COVID-19 Infection in Older Adults: A Community-Based Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence and characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases during the reopening period in older adults, given that little is known about the prevalence of COVID-19 after the stay-at-home order was lifted in the United States, nor the actual effects of adherence to recommended public health measures (RPHM) on the risk of COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study nested in a parent prospective cohort study, which followed a population-based sample of 2325 adults 50 years and older residing in southeast Minnesota to assess the incidence of viral infections. Participants were instructed to self-collect both nasal and oropharyngeal swabs, which were tested by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction-based severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) assay between May 8, 2020, and June, 30, 2020. We assessed the prevalence of COVID-19 cases and characteristics of study subjects. RESULTS: A total of 1505 eligible subjects participated in the study whose mean age was 68 years, with 885 (59%) women, 32 (2%) racial/ethnic minorities, and 906 (60%) with high-risk conditions for influenza. The prevalence of other Coronaviridae (human coronavirus [HCoV]-229E, HCoV-NL63, and HCoV-OC43) during the 2019 to 2020 flu season was 109 (7%), and none tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Almost all participants reported adhering to the RPHM (1,488 [99%] for social distancing, 1,438 [96%] for wearing mask in a public space, 1,476 [98%] for hand hygiene, and 1,441 (96%) for staying home mostly). Eighty-six percent of participants resided in a single-family home. CONCLUSION: We did not identify SARS-COV-2 infection in our study cohort. The combination of participants' behavior in following the RPHM and their living environment may considerably mitigate the risk of COVID-19.