Rapid Antigen Assays for SARS-CoV-2: Promise and Peril.

Though rapid antigen tests have historically problematic performance characteristics for the diagnosis of respiratory viral infections such as influenza, they have attained an unprecedented level of use in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ease of use and scalability of rapid antigen tests has facilitated a democratization and scale of testing beyond anything reasonably achievable by traditional laboratory-based testing. In this chapter, we discuss the performance characteristics of rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection and their application to non-traditional uses beyond clinical diagnostic testing.

Multicenter Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV Test.

With the approach of respiratory virus season in the Northern Hemisphere, clinical microbiology and public health laboratories will need rapid diagnostic assays to distinguish severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections for diagnosis and surveillance. In this study, the clinical performance of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV test (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) for nasopharyngeal swab specimens was evaluated in four centers: Johns Hopkins Medical Microbiology Laboratory, Northwell Health Laboratories, NYC Public Health Laboratory, and Los Angeles County/University of Southern California (LAC+USC) Medical Center. A total of 319 nasopharyngeal swab specimens, positive for SARS-CoV-2 (n = 75), influenza A virus (n = 65), influenza B virus (n = 50), or RSV (n = 38) or negative (n = 91) by the standard-of-care nucleic acid amplification tests at each site, were tested using the Cepheid panel test. The overall positive percent agreement for the SARS-CoV-2 target was 98.7% (n = 74/75), and the negative agreement was 100% (n = 91), with all other analytes showing 100% total agreement (n = 153). Standard-of-care tests to which the Cepheid panel was compared included the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2, Cepheid Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV, GenMark ePlex respiratory panel, BioFire respiratory panel 2.1 and v1.7, DiaSorin Simplexa COVID-19 Direct, and Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assays. The Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV test showed high sensitivity and accuracy for all analytes included in the test. This test will provide a valuable clinical diagnostic and public health solution for detecting and differentiating SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B virus, and RSV infections during the current respiratory virus season.

Is the Patient Infected with SARS-CoV-2?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently uses the nasopharyngeal swab specimen as the reference standard for evaluation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) assays. We propose that the patient-infected status algorithm is a superior way to classify whether an individual is infected or not infected.

Multicenter Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Test.

Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are the primary means of identifying acute infections caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Accurate and fast test results may permit more efficient use of protective and isolation resources and allow rapid therapeutic interventions. We evaluated the analytical and clinical performance characteristics of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert) test, a rapid, automated molecular test for SARS-CoV-2. Analytical sensitivity and specificity/interference were assessed with infectious SARS-CoV-2; other infectious coronavirus species, including SARS-CoV; and 85 nasopharyngeal swab specimens positive for other respiratory viruses, including endemic human coronaviruses (hCoVs). Clinical performance was assessed using 483 remnant upper- and lower-respiratory-tract specimens previously analyzed by standard-of-care (SOC) NAATs. The limit of detection of the Xpert test was 0.01 PFU/ml. Other hCoVs, including Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, were not detected by the Xpert test. SARS-CoV, a closely related species in the subgenus Sarbecovirus, was detected by a broad-range target (E) but was distinguished from SARS-CoV-2 (SARS-CoV-2-specific N2 target). Compared to SOC NAATs, the positive agreement of the Xpert test was 219/220 (99.5%), and the negative agreement was 250/261 (95.8%). A third tie-breaker NAAT resolved all but three of the discordant results in favor the Xpert test. The Xpert test provided sensitive and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a variety of upper- and lower-respiratory-tract specimens. The high sensitivity and short time to results of approximately 45 min may impact patient management.

Understanding, Verifying, and Implementing Emergency Use Authorization Molecular Diagnostics for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has brought a new wave of challenges to health care, particularly in the area of rapid diagnostic test development and implementation. The diagnosis of acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is critically dependent on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA from clinical specimens (e.g., nasopharyngeal swabs). While laboratory-developed testing for SARS-CoV-2 is an essential component of diagnostic testing for this virus, the majority of clinical microbiology laboratories are dependent on commercially available SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays. In contrast to assays approved or cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for in vitro diagnostic use, assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids have emergency use authorization (EUA) from the FDA. Outside of highly specialized academic and commercial laboratory settings, clinical microbiology laboratories are likely unfamiliar with the EUA classification, and thus, assay verification can be daunting. Further compounding anxiety for laboratories are major issues with the supply chain that are dramatically affecting the availability of test reagents and requiring laboratories to implement multiple commercial EUA tests. Here, we describe guidance for the verification of assays with EUA for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid from clinical specimens.

A needle in the haystack? Assessing the significance of envelope (E) gene-negative, nucleocapsid (N2) gene-positive SARS-CoV-2 detection by the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-COV-2 assay.

The clinical significance of high crossing threshold (Ct) detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR is inadequately defined. In the course of universal admission screening with the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay at our institution, we observed that 3.9 % (44/1123) of SARS-CoV-2 positive results were negative for the envelope (E) gene target but positive for the nucleocapsid (N2) target. The overall SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate during the three-month study period was 15.4 % (1123/7285), spanning April-June 2020. The majority of patients with E-negative, N2-positive results were asymptomatic, with 29.5 % of patients symptomatic for COVID-19 at the time of presentation. Asymptomatic patients with E-negative, N2-positive results were significantly younger than symptomatic patients with the same results (average 37.6 vs. 58.4, p = 0.003). Similar proportions of prior SARS-CoV-2 positivity were noted among symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals (38.5 % vs. 33.3 %, p = 0.82). Among the 16 asymptomatic patients with radiographic imaging performed, four (25 %) had chest radiographic findings concerning for viral pneumonia. Interestingly, we observed an E-negative, N2-positive result in one patient with a previous SARS-CoV-2 by the Xpert Xpress that occurred 71 days prior. Critically, E-negative, N2-positive results were observed in 8 symptomatic patients with a new diagnosis of COVID-19. Thus, though concerns remain about extended SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity in some patients, the ability of clinical laboratories to detect patients with high Ct values (including E-negative, N2-positive results) is vital for retaining maximal sensitivity for diagnostic purposes. Our data show that a finding of E-positive, N2-negative SARS-CoV-2 should not be used to rule out the presence of subclinical infection.