Standardization and Comparison of Emergency Use Authorized COVID-19 Assays and Testing Laboratories (preprint)

SARS-CoV-2, the causal agent of the global COVID-19 pandemic, made its appearance at the end of 2019 and is still circulating in the population. The pandemic led to an urgent need for fast, reliable, and widely available testing. After December 2020, the emergence of new variants of SARS-CoV-2 led to additional challenges since new and existing tests had to detect variants to the same extent as the original Wuhan strain. When an antigen-based test is submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) consideration it is benchmarked against PCR comparator assays, which yield cycle threshold (CT) data as an indirect indicator of viral load - the lower the CT, the higher the viral load of the sample and the higher the CT, the lower the viral load. The FDA mandates that 10-20% of clinical samples used to evaluate the antigen test have to be low positive. Low positive, as defined by the FDA, are clinical samples in which the CT of the SARS-CoV-2 target gene is within 3 CT of the mean CT value of the approved comparator tests Limit of Detection (LOD). While all comparator tests are PCR-based, the results from different PCR assays used are not uniform. Results vary depending on assay platform, target gene, LOD and laboratory methodology. The emergence and dominance of the Omicron variant further challenged this approach as the fraction of low positive clinical samples dramatically increased as compared to earlier SARS-CoV-2 variants. This led to 20-40% of clinical samples having high CT values and therefore assays vying for an EUA were failing to achieve the 80% Percent Positive Agreement (PPA) threshold required. Here we describe the methods and statistical analyses used to establish a predefined cutoff, based on genome copies per ml (GE/ml) to classify samples as low positive (less than the cutoff GE/ml) or high positive (greater than the cutoff GE/mL). CT 30 for the E gene target using Cobas(R) SARS-CoV-2-FluA/B platform performed at TriCore Reference Laboratories, and this low positive cutoff value was used for two EUA authorizations. Using droplet digital PCR and methods described here, a value 49,447.72 was determined as the GE/ml equivalent for the low positive cutoff. The CT cutoff corresponding to 49447.72 GE/ml was determined across other platforms and laboratories. The methodology and statistical analysis described here can now be used for standardization of all comparators used for FDA submissions with a goal towards establishing uniform criteria for EUA authorization. MotivationThe motivation for this work was the need to establish a predefined cutoff based on genome copies per ml (GE/ml) rather than Ct, which can vary depending on the laboratory and assay used. A GE/ml-based threshold was necessary to define what constituted low positives" for samples that were included in data sets submitted to the FDA for emergency use approval for SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests.

Sensitivity of Rapid Antigen Tests Against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and Delta Variants (preprint)

Rapid Antigen Tests (RAT) have become an invaluable tool for combating the COVID-19 pandemic. However, concerns have been raised regarding the ability of existing RATs to effectively detect emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. We compared the performance of eight commercially available, emergency use authorized RATs against the Delta and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants using individual patient and serially diluted pooled clinical samples. The RATs exhibited lower sensitivity for Omicron samples when using PCR Cycle threshold (CT) value (a proxy for RNA concentration) as the comparator. Interestingly, however, they exhibited similar sensitivity for Omicron and Delta samples when using quantitative antigen concentration as the comparator. We further found that the Omicron samples had lower ratios of antigen to RNA, which offers a potential explanation for the apparent lower sensitivity of RATs for that variant when using CT value as a reference. Our findings underscore the complexity in assessing RAT performance against emerging variants and highlight the need for ongoing evaluation in the face of changing population immunity and virus evolution.

SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing and whole genome sequencing following RNA recovery from used BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Self Tests (preprint)

Widespread use of over-the-counter rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 has led to a decrease in availability of clinical samples for viral genomic surveillance. As an alternative sample source, we evaluated RNA isolated from BinaxNOW swabs stored at ambient temperature for SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR and full viral genome sequencing. 81 of 103 samples (78.6%) yielded detectable RNA, and 46 of 57 samples (80.7 %) yielded complete genome sequences. Our results illustrate that SARS-CoV-2 RNA extracted from used Binax test swabs provides an important opportunity for improving SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance, evaluating transmission clusters, and monitoring within-patient evolution.

Deep mutational scanning identifies SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid escape mutations of currently available rapid antigen tests (preprint)

Widespread and frequent testing is critical to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and rapid antigen tests are the diagnostic tool of choice in many settings. With new viral variants continuously emerging and spreading rapidly, the effect of mutations on antigen test performance is a major concern. In response to the spread of variants the National Institutes of Health’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx®) initiative created a Variant Task Force to assess the impact of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants on in vitro diagnostic testing. To evaluate the impact of mutations on rapid antigen tests we developed a lentivirus-mediated mammalian surface-display platform for the SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid protein, the target of the majority of rapid antigen tests. We employed deep mutational scanning (DMS) to directly measure the effect of all possible Nucleocapsid point mutations on antibody binding by 17 diagnostic antibodies used in 11 commercially available antigen tests with FDA emergency use authorization (EUA). The results provide a complete map of the antibodies’ epitopes and their susceptibility to mutational escape. This approach identifies linear epitopes, conformational epitopes, as well as allosteric escape mutations in any region of the Nucleocapsid protein. All 17 antibodies tested exhibit distinct escape mutation profiles, even among antibodies recognizing the same folded domain. Our data predict no vulnerabilities of rapid antigen tests for detection of mutations found in currently and previously dominant variants of concern and interest. We confirm this using the commercial tests and sequence-confirmed COVID-19 patient samples. The antibody escape mutation profiles generated here serve as a valuable resource for predicting the performance of rapid antigen tests against past, current, as well as any possible future variants of SARS-CoV-2, establishing the direct clinical and public health utility of our system. Further, our mammalian surface-display platform combined with DMS is a generalizable platform for complete mapping of protein-protein interactions.

Where is Omicron? Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and Antigen Test Sensitivity at Commonly Sampled Anatomic Sites Over the Course of Disease (preprint)

Background: Upper respiratory samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection include the gold standard nasopharyngeal (NP) swab, and mid-turbinate (MT) nasal swabs, oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, and saliva. Following the emergence of the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant, limited preliminary data suggest that saliva may be more sensitive than nasal swab, highlighting the need to understand differences in viral load across different sites. Methods: MT, OP, and saliva samples were collected from symptomatic individuals presenting for evaluation in Atlanta, GA, in January 2022. Longitudinal samples were collected from a family cohort following COVID-19 exposure to describe detection of viral targets over the course of infection. Results: SARS-CoV-2 RNA and nucleocapsid antigen measurements demonstrated a nares-predominant phenotype in a familial cohort. A dominant location for SARS-CoV-2 was not found among cohort of 54 individuals. Positive percent agreement for virus detection in MT, OP and saliva specimens were 66.7 [54.1-79.2], 82.2 [71.1-93.4], and 72.5 [60.3-84.8] by RT-PCR, respectively, and 46.2 [32.6-59.7], 51.2 [36.2-66.1], and 72.0 [59.6-84.4] by ultrasensitive antigen assay. The composite of positive MT or OP assay was not significantly different than either alone for both RT-PCR and antigen assay (PPA 86.7 [76.7-96.6] and 59.5 [44.7-74.4], respectively). Conclusions: Our data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and RNA exhibited similar kinetics and diagnostic yield in three upper respiratory sample types across the duration of symptomatic disease. Collection of OP or combined nasal and OP samples does not appear to increase sensitivity versus validated nasal sampling for rapid detection of viral antigen