Minimal requirements for ISO15189 validation and accreditation of three next generation sequencing procedures for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance in clinical setting.

Rapid and recurrent breakthroughs of new SARS-CoV-2 strains (variants) have prompted public health authorities worldwide to set up surveillance networks to monitor the circulation of variants of concern. The use of next-generation sequencing technologies has raised the need for quality control assessment as required in clinical laboratories. The present study is the first to propose a validation guide for SARS-CoV-2 typing using three different NGS methods fulfilling ISO15189 standards. These include the assessment of the risk, specificity, accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability of the methods. Among the three methods used, two are amplicon-based involving reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (Artic v3 and Midnight v1) on Oxford Nanopore Technologies while the third one is amplicon-based using reverse complement polymerase chain reaction (Nimagen) on Illumina technology. We found that all methods met the quality requirement (e.g., 100% concordant typing results for accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability) for SARS-CoV-2 typing in clinical setting. Additionally, the typing results emerging from each of the three sequencing methods were compared using three widely known nomenclatures (WHO, Pangolineage, and Nextclade). They were also compared regarding single nucleotide variations. The outcomes showed that Artic v3 and Nimagen should be privileged for outbreak investigation as they provide higher quality results for samples that do not meet inclusion criteria for analysis in a clinical setting. This study is a first step towards validation of laboratory developed NGS tests in the context of the new European regulation for medical devices and in vitro diagnostics.

Nationwide Harmonization Effort for Semi-Quantitative Reporting of SARS-CoV-2 PCR Test Results in Belgium.

From early 2020, a high demand for SARS-CoV-2 tests was driven by several testing indications, including asymptomatic cases, resulting in the massive roll-out of PCR assays to combat the pandemic. Considering the dynamic of viral shedding during the course of infection, the demand to report cycle threshold (Ct) values rapidly emerged. As Ct values can be affected by a number of factors, we considered that harmonization of semi-quantitative PCR results across laboratories would avoid potential divergent interpretations, particularly in the absence of clinical or serological information. A proposal to harmonize reporting of test results was drafted by the National Reference Centre (NRC) UZ/KU Leuven, distinguishing four categories of positivity based on RNA copies/mL. Pre-quantified control material was shipped to 124 laboratories with instructions to setup a standard curve to define thresholds per assay. For each assay, the mean Ct value and corresponding standard deviation was calculated per target gene, for the three concentrations (107, 105 and 103 copies/mL) that determine the classification. The results of 17 assays are summarized. This harmonization effort allowed to ensure that all Belgian laboratories would report positive PCR results in the same semi-quantitative manner to clinicians and to the national database which feeds contact tracing interventions.

Rapid COVID-19 antigenic tests: Usefulness of a modified method for diagnosis.

The current reliable recommended test for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis is quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Rapid antigen test devices could be useful as they are less expensive, faster without the need of specialized laboratories to perform the test. We report the performances of two rapid immunochromatographic antigen testing devices compared with RT-qPCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection in nasopharyngeal samples. We carried out a lateral-flow tests study on 401 nasopharyngeal swab samples from nonduplicated suspected COVID-19 subjects. An equal volume of universal transport medium tubes-containing samples (dilution ratio = 1:15) were added to the manufacturer's extraction buffer solution (dilution ratio = 1:2) and analyzed on BioSpeedia COVID19Speed-Antigen Test and on Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test, devices. Qualitative results were compared to those obtained by the RT-qPCR (Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 Assay Seegene). Based on our data, the overall sensitivity for BioSpeedia and Panbio devices was estimated at 65.5% and 75.0%, respectively. The sensitivity was greater for cycle threshold values less than 25 achieving 90.4 and 96.8 for BioSpeedia and Panbio devices, respectively. A perfect specificity of 100.0% was observed for both devices.

SARS-CoV-2 Detection for Diagnosis Purposes in the Setting of a Molecular Biology Research Lab.

The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the exponential growth of COVID-19 cases have created a major crisis for public health systems. The critical identification of contagious asymptomatic carriers requires the isolation of viral nucleic acids, reverse transcription, and amplification by PCR. However, the shortage of specific proprietary reagents or the lack of automated platforms have seriously hampered diagnostic throughput in many countries. Here, we provide a procedure for SARS-CoV-2 detection for diagnostic purposes from clinical samples in the setting of a basic research molecular biology lab. The procedure details the necessary steps for daily analysis of up to 500 clinical samples with a team composed of 12 experienced researchers. The protocol has been designed to rely on widely available reagents and devices, to cope with heterogeneous clinical specimens, to guarantee nucleic acid extraction from very scarce biological material, and to minimize the rate of false-negative results.