Assessment of the clinical and analytical performance of the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay using the VALCOR protocol.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of diagnostic testing against curbing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The urgent need and scale for diagnostic tools resulted in manufacturers of SARS-CoV-2 assays receiving emergency authorization that lacked robust analytical or clinical evaluation. As it is highly likely that testing for SARS-CoV-2 will continue to play a central role in public health, the performance characteristics of assays should be evaluated to ensure reliable diagnostic outcomes are achieved. METHODS: VALCOR or "VALidation of SARS-CORona Virus-2 assays" is a study protocol designed to set up a framework for test validation of SARS-CoV-2 virus assays. Using clinical samples collated from VALCOR, the performance of Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay was assessed against a standard comparator assay. Diagnostic test parameters such as sensitivity, specificity and overall per cent agreement were calculated for the clinical performance of Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay. RESULTS: A total of 180 clinical samples were tested with an addition of 40 diluted clinical specimens to determine the limit of detection. When compared to the standard comparator assay Aptima had a sensitivity of 100.0% [95% CI 95.9-100.0] and specificity of 96.7% [95% CI 90.8-99.3]. The overall percent agreement was 98.3% with an excellent Cohen's coefficient of κ = 0.967 [95% CI 0.929-1.000]. For the limit of detection, Aptima was able to detect all of the diluted clinical samples. CONCLUSION: In conclusion. validation of Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay using clinical samples collated through the VALCOR protocol showed excellent test performance. Additionally, Aptima demonstrated high analytical sensitivity by detecting all diluted clinical samples corresponding to a low limit of detection.

Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy of Saliva Sampling Methods for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Reveals Differential Sensitivity and Association with Viral Load.

Nasopharyngeal swabs are considered the preferential collection method for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostics. Less invasive and simpler alternative sampling procedures, such as saliva collection, are desirable. We compared saliva specimens and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs with respect to sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2. A nasopharyngeal and two saliva specimens (collected by spitting or oral swabbing) were obtained from >2500 individuals. All samples were tested by RT-qPCR, detecting RNA of SARS-CoV-2. The test sensitivity was compared on the two saliva collections with the nasopharyngeal specimen for all subjects and stratified by symptom status and viral load. Of the 2850 patients for whom all three samples were available, 105 were positive on NP swab, whereas 32 and 23 were also positive on saliva spitting and saliva swabbing samples, respectively. The sensitivity of the RT-qPCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 among NP-positive patients was 30.5% (95% CI, 1.9%-40.2%) for saliva spitting and 21.9% (95% CI, 14.4%-31.0%) for saliva swabbing. However, when focusing on subjects with medium to high viral load, sensitivity on saliva increased substantially: 93.9% (95% CI, 79.8%-99.3%) and 76.9% (95% CI, 56.4%-91.0%) for spitting and swabbing, respectively, regardless of symptomatic status. Our results suggest that saliva cannot readily replace nasopharyngeal sampling for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics but may enable identification of the most contagious cases with medium to high viral loads.