Sars-Cov-2 antigen tests predict infectivity based on viral culture: comparison of antigen, PCR viral load, and viral culture testing on a large sample cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To define the relationship of SARS-CoV-2 antigen, viral load determined by RT-qPCR, and viral culture detection. Presumptively, viral culture can provide a surrogate measure for infectivity of sampled individuals and thereby inform how and where to most appropriately deploy antigen and nucleic acid amplification-based diagnostic testing modalities. METHODS: We compared the antigen testing results from three lateral flow and one microfluidics assay to viral culture detection and viral load determination performed in parallel in up to 189 nasopharyngeal swab samples positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sample viral loads, determined by RT-qPCR, were distributed across the range of viral load values observed in our testing population. RESULTS: Antigen tests were predictive of viral culture positivity, with the LumiraDx microfluidics method showing enhanced sensitivity (90%; 95% CI 83-94%) compared with the BD Veritor (74%, 95% CI 65-81%), CareStart (74%, 95% CI 65-81%) and Oscar Corona (74%, 95% CI 65-82%) lateral flow antigen tests. Antigen and viral culture positivity were also highly correlated with sample viral load, with areas under the receiver operator characteristic curves of 0.94 to 0.97 and 0.92, respectively. A viral load threshold of 100 000 copies/mL was 95% sensitive (95% CI, 90-98%) and 72% specific (95% CI, 60-81%) for predicting viral culture positivity. Adjusting for sample dilution inherent in our study design, sensitivities of antigen tests were ≥95% for detection of viral culture positive samples with viral loads >106 genome copies/mL, although specificity of antigen testing was imperfect. DISCUSSION: Antigen testing results and viral culture were correlated. For culture positive samples, the sensitivity of antigen tests was high at high viral loads that are likely associated with significant infectivity. Therefore, our data provides support for use of antigen testing in ruling out infectivity at the time of sampling.

Proceedings of the Clinical Microbiology Open 2018 and 2019 - a Discussion about Emerging Trends, Challenges, and the Future of Clinical Microbiology.

Clinical Microbiology Open (CMO), a meeting supported by the American Society for Microbiology's Clinical and Public Health Microbiology Committee (CPHMC) and Corporate Council, provides a unique interactive platform for leaders from diagnostic microbiology laboratories, industry, and federal agencies to discuss the current and future state of the clinical microbiology laboratory. The purpose is to leverage the group's diverse views and expertise to address critical challenges, and discuss potential collaborative opportunities for diagnostic microbiology, through the utilization of varied resources. The first and second CMO meetings were held in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Discussions were focused on the diagnostic potential of innovative technologies and laboratory diagnostic stewardship, including expansion of next-generation sequencing into clinical diagnostics, improvement and advancement of molecular diagnostics, emerging diagnostics, including rapid antimicrobial susceptibility and point of care testing (POCT), harnessing big data through artificial intelligence, and staffing in the clinical microbiology laboratory. Shortly after CMO 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic further highlighted the need for the diagnostic microbiology community to work together to utilize and expand on resources to respond to the pandemic. The issues, challenges, and potential collaborative efforts discussed during the past two CMO meetings proved critical in addressing the COVID-19 response by diagnostic laboratories, industry partners, and federal organizations. Planning for a third CMO (CMO 2022) is underway and will transition from a discussion-based meeting to an action-based meeting. The primary focus will be to reflect on the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and better prepare for future pandemics.

Verification of the Abbott Alinity m Resp-4-Plex assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and respiratory syncytial virus.

COVID-19 symptomology may overlap with other circulating respiratory viruses that may also cause severe disease and for which there are specific and potentially life-saving treatments. The Abbott Alinity m Resp-4-Plex assay is a multiplex PCR assay that simultaneously detects and differentiates infection with SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). We characterized its accuracy, precision, and analytical sensitivity. All were found to be robust for measures examined. In the context of sample-to-answer, near random access automation on the Alinity m platform, we believe that the Resp-4-Plex assay offers significant utility in addressing the current needs of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and future needs during anticipated endemic circulation of SARS-CoV-2 with other respiratory viruses.

Nasal Swab Performance by Collection Timing, Procedure, and Method of Transport for Patients with SARS-CoV-2.

The urgent need for large-scale diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 has prompted interest in sample collection methods of sufficient sensitivity to replace nasopharynx (NP) sampling. Nasal swab samples are an attractive alternative; however, previous studies have disagreed over how nasal sampling performs relative to NP sampling. Here, we compared nasal versus NP specimens collected by health care workers in a cohort of individuals clinically suspected of COVID-19 as well as SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription (RT)-PCR-positive outpatients undergoing follow-up. We compared subjects being seen for initial evaluation versus follow-up, two different nasal swab collection protocols, and three different transport conditions, including traditional viral transport media (VTM) and dry swabs, on 307 total study participants. We compared categorical results and viral loads to those from standard NP swabs collected at the same time from the same patients. All testing was performed by RT-PCR on the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 RealTime emergency use authorization (EUA) (limit of detection [LoD], 100 copies viral genomic RNA/ml transport medium). We found low concordance overall, with Cohen's kappa (κ) of 0.49, with high concordance only for subjects with very high viral loads. We found medium concordance for testing at initial presentation (κ = 0.68) and very low concordance for follow-up testing (κ = 0.27). Finally, we show that previous reports of high concordance may have resulted from measurement using assays with sensitivity of ≥1,000 copies/ml. These findings suggest nasal-swab testing be used for situations in which viral load is expected to be high, as we demonstrate that nasal swab testing is likely to miss patients with low viral loads.

Verification of the Abbott Alinity m Resp-4-Plex Assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and respiratory syncytial virus

COVID-19 symptomology may overlap with other circulating respiratory viruses that may also cause severe disease and for which there are specific and potentially life-saving treatments. The Abbott Alinity m Resp-4-Plex assay is a multiplex PCR assay that simultaneously detects and differentiates infection with SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). We characterized its accuracy, precision, and analytical sensitivity. All were found to be robust for measures examined. In the context of sample-to-answer, near random access automation on the Alinity m platform, we believe that the Resp-4-Plex assay offers significant utility in addressing the current needs of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and future needs during anticipated endemic circulation of SARS-CoV-2 with other respiratory viruses.

Saliva is Comparable to Nasopharyngeal Swabs for Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

The continued need for molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the potential for self-collected saliva as an alternative to nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs for sample acquisition led us to compare saliva to NP swabs in an outpatient setting without restrictions to avoid food, drink, smoking, or tooth-brushing. A total of 385 pairs of NP and saliva specimens were obtained, the majority from individuals presenting for initial evaluation, and were tested on two high-sensitivity reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) platforms, the Abbott m2000 and Abbott Alinity m (both with limits of detection [LoD] of 100 copies of viral RNA/ml). Concordance between saliva and NP swabs was excellent overall (Cohen's κ = 0.93) for both initial and follow-up testing, for both platforms, and for specimens treated with guanidinium transport medium as preservative as well as for untreated saliva (κ = 0.88 to 0.95). Viral loads were on average 16× higher in NP specimens than saliva specimens, suggesting that only the relatively small fraction of outpatients (∼8% in this study) who present with very low viral loads (<1,600 copies/ml from NP swabs) would be missed by testing saliva instead of NP swabs when using sensitive testing platforms. Special attention was necessary to ensure leak-resistant specimen collection and transport. The advantages of self-collection of saliva, without behavioral restrictions, will likely outweigh a minor potential decrease in clinical sensitivity in individuals less likely to pose an infectious risk to others for many real-world scenarios, especially for initial testing. IMPORTANCE In general, the most accurate COVID-19 testing is hands-on and uncomfortable, requiring trained staff and a "brain-tickling" nasopharyngeal swab. Saliva would be much easier on both fronts, since patients could collect it themselves, and it is after all just spit. However, despite much interest, it remains unclear how well saliva performs in real-world settings when just using it in place of an NP swab without elaborate or cumbersome restrictions about not eating/drinking before testing, etc. Also, almost all studies of COVID-19 testing, whether of NP swabs, saliva, or otherwise, have been restricted to reporting results in the abstruse units of "CT values," which only mean something in the context of a specific assay and testing platform. Here, we compared saliva versus NP swabs in a real-world setting without restriction and report all results in natural units-the amount of virus being shed-showing that saliva is essentially just as good as NP swabs.

The Limit of Detection Matters: The Case for Benchmarking Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Testing.

BACKGROUND: Resolving the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires diagnostic testing to determine which individuals are infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The current gold standard is to perform reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on nasopharyngeal samples. Best-in-class assays demonstrate a limit of detection (LoD) of approximately 100 copies of viral RNA per milliliter of transport media. However, LoDs of currently approved assays vary over 10,000-fold. Assays with higher LoDs will miss infected patients. However, the relative clinical sensitivity of these assays remains unknown. METHODS: Here we model the clinical sensitivities of assays based on their LoD. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were obtained from 4700 first-time positive patients using the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 Emergency Use Authorization test. We derived viral loads from Ct based on PCR principles and empiric analysis. A sliding scale relationship for predicting clinical sensitivity was developed from analysis of viral load distribution relative to assay LoD. RESULTS: Ct values were reliably repeatable over short time testing windows, providing support for use as a tool to estimate viral load. Viral load was found to be relatively evenly distributed across log10 bins of incremental viral load. Based on these data, each 10-fold increase in LoD is expected to lower assay sensitivity by approximately 13%. CONCLUSIONS: The assay LoD meaningfully impacts clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 tests. The highest LoDs on the market will miss a majority of infected patients. Assays should therefore be benchmarked against a universal standard to allow cross-comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection methods.

Large-Scale, In-House Production of Viral Transport Media To Support SARS-CoV-2 PCR Testing in a Multihospital Health Care Network during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has severely disrupted worldwide supplies of viral transport media (VTM) due to widespread demand for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) testing. In response to this ongoing shortage, we began production of VTM in-house in support of diagnostic testing in our hospital network. As our diagnostic laboratory was not equipped for reagent production, we took advantage of space and personnel that became available due to closure of the research division of our medical center. We utilized a formulation of VTM described by the CDC that was simple to produce, did not require filtration for sterilization, and used reagents that were available from commercial suppliers. Performance of VTM was evaluated by several quality assurance measures. Based on cycle threshold (CT ) values of spiking experiments, we found that our VTM supported highly consistent amplification of the SARS-CoV-2 target (coefficient of variation = 2.95%) using the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) assay on the Abbott m2000 platform. VTM was also found to be compatible with multiple swab types and, based on accelerated stability studies, able to maintain functionality for at least 4 months at room temperature. We further discuss how we met logistical challenges associated with large-scale VTM production in a crisis setting, including use of a staged assembly line for VTM transport tube production.

Open Development and Clinical Validation of Multiple 3D-Printed Nasopharyngeal Collection Swabs: Rapid Resolution of a Critical COVID-19 Testing Bottleneck.

The pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a severe international shortage of the nasopharyngeal swabs that are required for collection of optimal specimens, creating a critical bottleneck blocking clinical laboratories' ability to perform high-sensitivity virological testing for SARS-CoV-2. To address this crisis, we designed and executed an innovative, cooperative, rapid-response translational-research program that brought together health care workers, manufacturers, and scientists to emergently develop and clinically validate new swabs for immediate mass production by 3D printing. We performed a multistep preclinical evaluation of 160 swab designs and 48 materials from 24 companies, laboratories, and individuals, and we shared results and other feedback via a public data repository (http://github.com/rarnaout/Covidswab/). We validated four prototypes through an institutional review board (IRB)-approved clinical trial that involved 276 outpatient volunteers who presented to our hospital's drive-through testing center with symptoms suspicious for COVID-19. Each participant was swabbed with a reference swab (the control) and a prototype, and SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) results were compared. All prototypes displayed excellent concordance with the control (κ = 0.85 to 0.89). Cycle threshold (CT ) values were not significantly different between each prototype and the control, supporting the new swabs' noninferiority (Mann-Whitney U [MWU] test, P > 0.05). Study staff preferred one of the prototypes over the others and preferred the control swab overall. The total time elapsed between identification of the problem and validation of the first prototype was 22 days. Contact information for ordering can be found at http://printedswabs.org Our experience holds lessons for the rapid development, validation, and deployment of new technology for this pandemic and beyond.

Microwave-Generated Steam Decontamination of N95 Respirators Utilizing Universally Accessible Materials.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has caused a severe, international shortage of N95 respirators, which are essential to protect health care providers from infection. Given the contemporary limitations of the supply chain, it is imperative to identify effective means of decontaminating, reusing, and thereby conserving N95 respirator stockpiles. To be effective, decontamination must result in sterilization of the N95 respirator without impairment of respirator filtration or user fit. Although numerous methods of N95 decontamination exist, none are universally accessible. In this work, we describe a microwave-generated steam decontamination protocol for N95 respirators for use in health care systems of all sizes, geographies, and means. Using widely available glass containers, mesh from commercial produce bags, a rubber band, and a 1,100-W commercially available microwave, we constructed an effective, standardized, and reproducible means of decontaminating N95 respirators. Employing this methodology against MS2 phage, a highly conservative surrogate for SARS-CoV-2 contamination, we report an average 6-log10 plaque-forming unit (PFU) (99.9999%) and a minimum 5-log10 PFU (99.999%) reduction after a single 3-min microwave treatment. Notably, quantified respirator fit and function were preserved, even after 20 sequential cycles of microwave steam decontamination. This method provides a valuable means of effective decontamination and reuse of N95 respirators by frontline providers facing urgent need.IMPORTANCE Due to the rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there is an increasing shortage of protective gear necessary to keep health care providers safe from infection. As of 9 April 2020, the CDC reported 9,282 cumulative cases of COVID-19 among U.S. health care workers (CDC COVID-19 Response Team, MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 69:477-481, 2020, https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6915e6). N95 respirators are recommended by the CDC as the ideal method of protection from COVID-19. Although N95 respirators are traditionally single use, the shortages have necessitated the need for reuse. Effective methods of N95 decontamination that do not affect the fit or filtration ability of N95 respirators are essential. Numerous methods of N95 decontamination exist; however, none are universally accessible. In this study, we describe an effective, standardized, and reproducible means of decontaminating N95 respirators using widely available materials. The N95 decontamination method described in this work will provide a valuable resource for hospitals, health care centers, and outpatient practices that are experiencing increasing shortages of N95 respirators due to the COVID-19 pandemic.