Comparison of performance between three SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays (Aptima™, Laboratory Developed Test-Fusion, and R-GENE®) with special attention to turnaround time, a key point in laboratory management.

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) highlights the importance of rapid diagnostic testing to identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infections and to limit the spread of the virus. Many molecular assays have become commercially available to cope with this surging demand for timely diagnosis of COVID-19 cases, but identifying individuals requires accurate diagnostic tools. We compared the performance of three molecular SARS-CoV-2 assays: Aptima™ SARS-CoV-2 assay running on the Panther system (Hologic), an in-house assay (Laboratory Developed Test, LDT) running on the Fusion module of the Panther Fusion system (LDT-Fusion; Hologic), and the R-GENE® SARS-CoV-2 assay (bioMérieux). In addition, we also evaluated the turnaround time. This parameter is crucial to managing the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and represents a key point in the quality management at the laboratory. Aptima™ and LDT-Fusion assays exhibited an excellent positive percent agreement (PPA) (100.0%), while the R-GENE® assay showed a slightly decreased PPA (98.2%). The Hologic assays have a higher throughput with less hands-on time than the R-GENE® assays (24-25 vs. 71 min). Both Hologic assays are used on a fully automated random-access testing system with on-demand testing capabilities that avoid run series, unlike the R-GENE® assay. Automated random-access testing systems should be preferred during periods of high SARS-CoV-2 prevalence.

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 through the evaluation of three immunoassays: Two automated immunoassays (Euroimmun and Abbott) and one rapid lateral flow immunoassay (NG Biotech).

BACKGROUND: The emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 has promoted the development of new serological tests that could be complementary to RT-PCR. Nevertheless, the assessment of clinical performances of available tests is urgently required as their use has just been initiated for diagnose. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the performance of three immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. METHODS: Two automated immunoassays (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 CLIA IgG and Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG/IgA assays) and one lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA NG-Test® IgG-IgM COVID-19) were tested. 293 specimens were analyzed from patients with a positive RT-PCR response, from patients with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 but exhibiting a negative response to the RT-PCR detection test, and from control group specimens. Days since symptoms onset were collected from clinical information sheet associated with respiratory tract samples. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity for IgG was equivalent (around 80 %) for CLIA, ELISA and LFIA. Sensitivity for IgG detection, >14 days after onset of symptoms, was 100.0 % for all assays. Overall specificity for IgG was greater for CLIA and LFIA (more than 98 %) compared to ELISA (95.8 %). Specificity was significantly different between IgA ELISA (78.9 %) and IgM LFIA (95.8 %) (p < 0.05). The best agreement was observed between CLIA and LFIA assays (97 %; k = 0.936). CONCLUSION: Excellent sensitivity for IgG detection was obtained >14 days after onset of symptoms for all immunoassays. Specificity was also excellent for IgG CLIA and IgG LFIA. Our study shows that NG-Test® is reliable and accurate for routine use in clinical laboratories.