Evaluation of four laboratory-based high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 automated antigen tests compared to RT-PCR on nasal and oropharyngeal samples.

BACKGROUND: The demand for RT-PCR testing has been unprecedented during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Fully automated antigen tests (AAT) are less cumbersome than RT-PCR, but data on performance compared to RT-PCR are scarce. METHODS: The study consists of two parts. A retrospective analytical part, comparing the performance of four different AAT on 100 negative and 204 RT-PCR positive deep oropharyngeal samples divided into four groups based on RT-PCR cycle of quantification levels. In the prospective clinical part, 206 individuals positive for and 199 individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 were sampled from either the anterior nasal cavity (mid-turbinate) or by deep oropharyngeal swabs or both. The performance of AATs was compared to RT-PCR. RESULTS: The overall analytical sensitivity of the AATs differed significantly from 42% (95% CI 35-49) to 60% (95% CI 53-67) with 100% analytical specificity. Clinical sensitivity of the AATs differed significantly from 26% (95% CI 20-32) to 88% (95% CI 84-93) with significant higher sensitivity for mid-turbinate nasal swabs compared to deep oropharyngeal swabs. Clinical specificity varied from 97% to 100%. CONCLUSION: All AATs were highly specific for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Three of the four AATs were significantly more sensitive than the fourth AAT both in terms of analytical and clinical sensitivity. Anatomical test location significantly influenced the clinical sensitivity of AATs.

SpikeSeq: A rapid, cost efficient and simple method to identify SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern by Sanger sequencing part of the spike protein gene.

In 2020, the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, caused a pandemic, which is still raging at the time of writing this. Here, we present results from SpikeSeq, the first published Sanger sequencing-based method for the detection of Variants of Concern (VOC) and key mutations, using a 1 kb amplicon from the recognized ARTIC Network primers. The proposed setup relies entirely on materials and methods already in use in diagnostic RT-qPCR labs and on existing commercial infrastructure offering sequencing services. For data analysis, we provide an automated, open source, and browser-based mutation calling software (https://github.com/kblin/covid-spike-classification, https://ssi.biolib.com/covid-spike-classification). We validated the setup on 195 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples, and we were able to profile 85% of RT-qPCR positive samples, where the last 15% largely stemmed from samples with low viral count. We compared the SpikeSeq results to WGS results. SpikeSeq has been used as the primary variant identification tool on > 10.000 SARS-CoV-2 positive clinical samples during 2021. At approximately 4€ per sample in material cost, minimal hands-on time, little data handling, and a short turnaround time, the setup is simple enough to be implemented in any SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR diagnostic lab. Our protocol provides results that can be used to choose antibodies in a clinical setting and for the tracking and surveillance of all positive samples for new variants and known ones such as Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1) Delta (B.1.617.2), Omicron BA.1(B.1.1.529), BA.2, BA.4/5, BA.2.75.x, and many more, as of October 2022.

Validation and advantages of using novel RT-qPCR melting curve analysis assays for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) assays are gold standard in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection and play a major role in viral subtyping for rapid detection and monitoring of important mutations, containing the spread of new virus variants. We wanted to compare RT-qPCR melting curve analysis assays to Sanger Sequencing for detection of variants within the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and examined their sensitivity and specificity. Samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 (n = 663 + 82) were subtyped using both Sanger sequencing and five RT-qPCR melting curve analysis assays specific for the mutations N501Y, P681H, E484K, K417N/T, and N439K. The results of the two methods were compared. The training cohort and the clinical validation cohort showed equally, or significantly better sensitivity of the assays compared to the Sanger sequencing. The agreement of the Sanger sequencing and the assays ranged from 92.6 to 100% for the training cohort and 99.4-100% for the clinical validation. The sensitivity, specificity, and turn-around time of the RT-qPCR melting curve analysis assays are well-suited for clinical monitoring of VOCs, making the assays an important tool in contact tracing and risk stratification. Furthermore, the assays were able to indicate the presence of new mutations in the complementary sequence to the mutation-specific probes.

A nationwide analytical and clinical evaluation of 44 rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in massive testing by Rapid Antigen Tests (RAT) without solid independent data regarding clinical performance being available. Thus, decision on purchase of a specific RAT may rely on manufacturer-provided data and limited peer-reviewed data. METHODS: This study consists of two parts. In the retrospective analytical part, 33 RAT from 25 manufacturers were compared to RT-PCR on 100 negative and 204 positive deep oropharyngeal cavity samples divided into four groups based on RT-PCR Cq levels. In the prospective clinical part, nearly 200 individuals positive for SARS-CoV-2 and nearly 200 individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 by routine RT-PCR testing were retested within 72 h for each of 44 included RAT from 26 manufacturers applying RT-PCR as the reference method. RESULTS: The overall analytical sensitivity differed significantly between the 33 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-4.8) to 42% (95% CI 35-49). All RAT presented analytical specificities of 100%. Likewise, the overall clinical sensitivity varied significantly between the 44 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-4.8) to 94% (95% CI 91-97). All RAT presented clinical specificities between 98 and 100%. CONCLUSION: The study presents analytical as well as clinical performance data for 44 commercially available RAT compared to the same RT-PCR test. The study enables identification of individual RAT that has significantly higher sensitivity than other included RAT and may aid decision makers in selecting between the included RAT. FUNDING: The study was funded by a participant fee for each test and the Danish Regions.