ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Analytical sensitivity of 2 rapid antigen tests was evaluated for detection of presumed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants and earlier variants of concern. METHODS: A total of 152 SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive samples (N and ORF1ab positive but S gene negative) were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antigen by ACON lateral flow and LumiraDx fluorescence immunoassays. Sensitivity within 3 viral load ranges was compared among these 152 samples and 194 similarly characterized samples collected prior to the circulation of the Delta variant (pre-Delta). RESULTS: Antigen was detected in >95% of pre-Delta and presumed Omicron samples for both tests at viral loads >500,000 copies/mL, and 65 to 85% of samples with 50,000-500,000 copies/mL. At viral load <50,000 copies/mL, antigen tests showed better sensitivity in detecting pre-Delta compared to Omicron variants. LumiraDx was more sensitive than ACON at low viral load. CONCLUSIONS: Antigen tests had decreased sensitivity for detecting presumed Omicron compared to pre-Delta variants at low viral load.
ABSTRACT
Rapid and widespread diagnostic testing is critical to providing timely patient care and reducing transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Recently, the Visby Medical COVID-19 point of care (POC) test was granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid at the point of care. We evaluated its performance characteristics using residual specimens (n = 100) collected from Mayo Clinic patients using nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs and placed in viral transport media (VTM). The same specimen was tested using both the laboratory reference method (RT-qPCR) and Visby test. The reference methods utilized included a laboratory developed test with EUA (Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Rochester, MN) using the TaqMan assay on a Roche Light Cycler 480 or a commercially available EUA platform (cobas® SARS-CoV-2; Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN). Positive, negative, and overall percent agreement between the Visby COVID-19 test and the reference method were calculated. Additionally, the limit of detection (LoD) claimed by the manufacturer (1112 copies/mL) was verified with serial dilutions of heat inactivated virus. The Visby COVID-19 test correctly identified 29/30 positive samples and 69/70 negative samples, resulting in an overall concordance of 98.0%, positive percent agreement of 96.7%, and negative percent agreement of 98.6%. The abbreviated LoD experiment showed that the analytical sensitivity of the method is as low as or lower than 500 copies/mL. Our study demonstrated that Visby COVID-19 is well-suited to address rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing needs. It has high concordance with central laboratory-based RT-qPCR methods, a low rate of invalid results, and superior analytical sensitivity to some other EUA POC devices.
ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Limit of Detection , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the analytical sensitivity and specificity of 4 rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag RDTs) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, using reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) as the reference method and further characterizing samples using droplet digital quantitative PCR (ddPCR) and a mass spectrometric antigen test. METHODS: Three hundred fifty (150 negative and 200 RT-qPCR positive) residual PBS samples were tested for antigen using the BD Veritor lateral flow (LF), ACON LF, ACON fluorescence immunoassay (FIA), and LumiraDx FIA. ddPCR was performed on RT-qPCR-positive samples to quantitate the viral load in copies/mL applied to each Ag RDT. Mass spectrometric antigen testing was performed on PBS samples to obtain a set of RT-qPCR-positive, antigen-positive samples for further analysis. RESULTS: All Ag RDTs had nearly 100% specificity compared to RT-qPCR. Overall analytical sensitivity varied from 66.5% to 88.3%. All methods detected antigen in samples with viral load >1 500 000 copies/mL RNA, and detected ≥75% of samples with viral load of 500 000 to 1 500 000 copies/mL. The BD Veritor LF detected only 25% of samples with viral load between 50 000 to 500 000 copies/mL, compared to 75% for the ACON LF device and >80% for LumiraDx and ACON FIA. The ACON FIA detected significantly more samples with viral load <50 000 copies/mL compared to the BD Veritor. Among samples with detectable antigen and viral load <50 000 copies/mL, sensitivity of the Ag RDT varied between 13.0% (BD Veritor) and 78.3% (ACON FIA). CONCLUSIONS: Ag RDTs differ significantly in analytical sensitivity, particularly at viral load <500 000 copies/mL.
Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/analysis , COVID-19 Testing/methods , Point-of-Care Testing , Humans , Mass Spectrometry , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Viral LoadABSTRACT
Serologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 can be used for evaluation of past infection in individual patients and for community seroprevalence studies. We evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of the Genalyte Maverick SARS-CoV-2 Multi-Antigen Serology Panel compared to the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (NC) qualitative immunoassay, using well characterized clinical serum samples. A total of 143 pre-pandemic sera and 48 sera collected from patients with a negative molecular SARS-CoV-2 result were used for specificity studies. For sensitivity analyses, 179 sera were used, obtained 3-7 days, 8-14 days, or ≥ 15 days after symptom onset from patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Specificity was determined to be 95.3% (182/191) for the Genalyte Maverick. Overall sensitivity of the Genalyte Maverick was similar to that observed for the Roche Elecsys NC test, 79.3% (142/179) vs. 76.5% (137/179), respectively. Genalyte Maverick trended, without statistical significance, towards higher sensitivity as compared to the Roche Elecsys NC test in the 3-7 days (11/25 vs. 9/25, respectively) and 8-14 days (21/28 vs. 19/28, respectively) post-symptom onset sample sets, but was identical in the ≥ 15 days post-symptom onset group (106/116 vs. 106/116, respectively). Therefore, the Genalyte Maverick serologic test had similar overall sensitivity to the Roche Elecsys NC assay, but may have slightly improved sensitivity for early seroconversion. The lower Genalyte Maverick specificity as compared to the Roche Elecsys NC assay as reported by other studies (>99%), may necessitate confirmatory testing of positive Genalyte Maverick results if implemented for clinical use.
ABSTRACT
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.