An assessment of the laboratory network in Ghana: A national-level ATLAS survey (2019-2020).

Background: Integrated health systems with strong laboratory networks are critical in improving public health. The current study assessed the laboratory network in Ghana and its functionality using the Assessment Tool for Laboratory Services (ATLAS). Intervention: A national-level laboratory network survey was conducted among stakeholders of the Ghanaian laboratory network in Accra. Face-to-face interviews were conducted from December 2019 to January 2020, with follow-up phone interviews between June and July 2020. Also, we reviewed supporting documents provided by stakeholders for supplementary information and transcribed these to identify themes. Where possible, we completed the Laboratory Network scorecard using data obtained from the ATLAS. Lessons learnt: The Laboratory Network (LABNET) scorecard assessment was a valuable addition to the ATLAS survey as it quantified the functionality of the laboratory network and its overall advancement toward achieving International Health Regulations (2005) and Global Health Security Agenda targets. Two significant challenges indicated by respondents were laboratory financing and delayed implementation of the Ghana National Health Laboratory Policy. Recommendations: Stakeholders recommended a review of the country's funding landscape, such as funding laboratory services from the country's internally generated funds. Also, they recommended laboratory policy implementation to ensure adequate laboratory workforce and standards.

Predicting Direct-Specimen SARS-CoV-2 Assay Performance Using Residual Patient Samples.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic sensitivities of point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 assays depend on specimen type and population-specific viral loads. Evaluation of these assays require "direct" specimens from paired-swab studies rather than more accessible residual specimens in viral transport media (VTM). METHODS: Residual VTM and limit-of-detection studies were conducted on Abbott ID NOW™ COVID-19, Quidel Sofia 2™ SARS Antigen FIA, and DiaSorin Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct assays, with cycle threshold (CT) adjustments to approximate direct-specimen testing based on gene-target doubling each PCR cycle. Logistic regression was used to model assay performance by specimen CT. These models were applied to CT distributions of symptomatic and asymptomatic populations presenting to emergency services to predict the percentage of specimens that would be detected by each assay. A 96-sample paired-swab study was conducted to confirm model results. RESULTS: When using direct nasopharyngeal samples and fit with either VTM or limit-of-detection data, percent positivities for ID NOW (symptomatic 94.9%/97.4%; asymptomatic 88.4.0%/89.6%) and Simplexa (symptomatic 97.8%/97.2%; asymptomatic 91.1%/90.8%) were predicted to be similar. Likewise, percent positivities for ID NOW with direct nasal specimens (symptomatic 77.8%; asymptomatic 64.5%) and, fit with VTM data, Sofia 2 with direct nasopharyngeal specimens (symptomatic 76.6%, asymptomatic 60.3%) were similar. The paired-swab study comparing direct nasopharyngeal specimens on ID NOW and nasopharyngeal VTM specimens on Simplexa showed 99% concordance. CONCLUSIONS: Assay performance can be modeled as dependent on viral load, fit using laboratory bench study results, and adjusted to account for direct-specimen testing. When using nasopharyngeal specimens, direct testing on Abbott ID NOW and VTM testing on DiaSorin Simplexa have similar performance.

Differences in Performance Characteristics Among Four High-Throughput Assays for the Detection of Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2 Using a Common Set of Patient Samples.

OBJECTIVES: Serologic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has experienced a changing landscape of available assays coupled with uncertainty surrounding performance characteristics. Studies are needed to directly compare multiple commercially available assays. METHODS: Residual serum samples were identified based on SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, clinical test results, and collection dates. Serum samples were analyzed using assays from four different manufacturers: DiaSorin anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG, EUROIMMUN anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA, Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2, and Siemens SARS-CoV-2 Total antibody assays. RESULTS: Samples from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive patients became increasingly positive as time from symptom onset increased. For patients with latest sample 14 or more days after symptom onset, sensitivities reached 93.1% to 96.6%, 98.3%, and 96.6% for EUROIMMUN, Roche, and Siemens assays, respectively, which were superior to the DiaSorin assay at 87.7%. The specificity of Roche and Siemens assays was 100% and superior to DiaSorin and EUROIMMUN assays, which ranged from 96.1% to 97.0% and 86.3% to 96.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratories should be aware of the advantages and limitations of serology testing options for SARS-CoV-2. The specificity and sensitivity achieved by the Roche and Siemens assays would be acceptable for testing in lower-prevalence regions and have the potential of orthogonal testing advantages if used in combination.

Comparative study of four SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) platforms demonstrates that ID NOW performance is impaired substantially by patient and specimen type.

The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States created a unique situation where multiple molecular SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic assays rapidly received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA and were validated by laboratories and utilized clinically, all within a period of a few weeks. We compared the performance of four of these assays that were evaluated for use at our institution: Abbott RealTime m2000 SARS-CoV-2 Assay, DiaSorin Simplexa COVID-19 Direct, Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2, and Abbott ID NOW COVID-19. Nasopharyngeal and nasal specimens were collected from 88 ED and hospital-admitted patients and tested by the four methods in parallel to compare performance. ID NOW performance stood out as significantly worse than the other 3 assays despite demonstrating comparable analytic sensitivity. Further study determined that the use of a nasal swab compared to a nylon flocked nasopharyngeal swab, as well as use in a population chronically vs. acutely positive for SARS-CoV-2, were substantial factors.