Clinical evaluation of a fully automated and high-throughput molecular testing system for detection of influenza virus.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the performance of the cobas® 6800 system and cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B, a fully automated molecular testing system for influenza viruses and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This enabled an assay in a batch of 96 samples in approximately 3 h. METHODS: An assay was performed using the cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B on the cobas 6800 system for samples collected in four facilities between November 2019 and March 2020 in our previous study. The results were compared with those obtained using the reference methods. RESULTS: Of the 127 samples analyzed, the cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B detected influenza A virus in 75 samples, of which 73 were positive using the reference methods. No false negative results were observed. The overall positive and negative percent agreement for influenza A virus detection were 100.0% and 96.3%, respectively. There were no positive results for the influenza B virus or SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSION: The cobas 6800 system and cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B showed high accuracy for influenza A virus detection and can be useful for clinical laboratories, especially those that routinely assay many samples.

A prospective clinical evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test using anterior nasal samples.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnostic accuracy of antigen testing of anterior nasal (AN) samples for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has not been evaluated in the Japanese population. This study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test (rapid antigen test) using AN samples. METHODS: Two AN samples and one nasopharyngeal (NP) sample were collected from individuals undergoing screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The results of the rapid antigen test and the reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test using AN samples were compared to those of RT-PCR tests using NP samples. RESULTS: Samples were collected from 800 participants, 95 and 110 of whom tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR tests of AN and NP samples, respectively. The overall sensitivity/specificity of the AN rapid antigen test and AN RT-PCR were 72.7%/100% and 86.4%/100%, respectively. In symptomatic cases, the sensitivities of the AN rapid antigen test and AN RT-PCR were 84.7% and 94.9%, respectively. In asymptomatic cases, the sensitivities of the AN rapid antigen test and AN RT-PCR were 58.8% and 76.5%, respectively. The sensitivity of the AN rapid antigen test was over 80% in cases with cycle threshold (Ct) values < 25; it significantly decreased with an increase in the Ct values (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The rapid antigen test with AN samples had a favorable sensitivity, especially in symptomatic cases or in cases with Ct values < 25. It gave no false-positive results. Compared with AN-RT PCR, the AN rapid antigen test had a modestly lower sensitivity in asymptomatic cases.

Clinical Performance of the cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B Assay in Nasal Samples.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Point-of-care type molecular diagnostic tests have been used for detecting SARS-CoV-2, although their clinical utility with nasal samples has yet to be established. This study evaluated the clinical performance of the cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B (Liat) assay in nasal samples. METHODS: Nasal and nasopharyngeal samples were collected and were tested using the Liat, the cobas 6800 system and the cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B (cobas), and a method developed by National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Japan (NIID). RESULTS: A total of 814 nasal samples were collected. The Liat assay was positive for SARS-CoV-2 in 113 (13.9%). The total, positive, and negative concordance rate between the Liat and cobas/NIID assays were 99.3%/98.4%, 99.1%/100%, and 99.3%/98.2%, respectively. Five samples were positive only using the Liat assay. Their Ct values ranged from 31.9 to 37.2. The Ct values of the Liat assay were significantly lower (p < 0.001) but were correlated (p < 0.001) with those of other molecular assays. In the participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on the Liat assay using nasopharyngeal samples, 88.2% of their nasal samples also tested positive using the Liat assay. CONCLUSION: The Liat assay showed high concordance with other molecular assays in nasal samples. Some discordance occurred in samples with Ct values > 30 on the Liat assay.