Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 16 de 16
Filter
1.
Microbiol Spectr ; : e0135522, 2022 Oct 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2078739

ABSTRACT

In 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enabled manufacturers to request emergency use authorization (EUA) to facilitate the rapid authorization of in vitro diagnostic (IVD) platforms for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Uncommon SARS-CoV-2 point mutations could cause nucleocapsid (N) gene target failure (NGTF) when using first-generation Xpert Xpress assays, so improvements were designed and implemented. In response to NGTF reports and with consideration of viral genomic information in public databases, the Xpress assays were redesigned to mitigate the impact of SARS-CoV-2 mutations on qualitative assay performance. The second-generation assays include a third gene target (RNA-dependent RNA polymerase [RdRp]) and redundant oligonucleotide probes for the N2 target. First- and second-generation assay performances were evaluated using a challenge set of samples. A second-generation assay with updated oligonucleotide chemistry received FDA EUA in September 2021. A prototype assay with oligonucleotide chemistry similar to that of the second-generation assay with FDA EUA successfully detected all three gene targets (N2, envelope [E], and RdRp) in all challenge samples (100%; 50/50), including variants with N gene mutations (g.29197C>T or g.29200C>T), which caused NGTF in the first-generation assays. Investigation and reporting of IVD target failures, public sharing of viral genomic sequence data, and the FDA EUA pathway were essential components in facilitating a short cycle time from the identification of mutations that impact the performance of an IVD assay to the design and implementation of an improved IVD assay. IMPORTANCE The SARS-CoV-2 genome has mutated during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Some of these mutations have impacted the performance of nucleic acid amplification tests like PCR, which are commonly used as diagnostic tools to detect an infection. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency use authorization (EUA) process enables the rapid reformulation and regulatory authorization of improved PCRs. In our experience, the identification of SARS-CoV-2 mutations that impact PCR performance, the subsequent development of improved PCR chemistry, and the use of the FDA EUA regulatory pathway led to improved diagnostic performance during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic that is able to keep pace with the rapidly evolving genome of SARS-CoV-2.

2.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis ; 103(4): 115726, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1889344

ABSTRACT

This study used digital polymerase chain reaction (dPCR) to determine whether envelope (E) gene-negative and nucleocapsid (N2) gene-positive (E-N+) results obtained with the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay are reliable. Using droplet digital PCR results as a reference, 18 of 22 E-N+ samples with a low viral load (81.8%) were identified as true positives.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Humans , Nasopharynx , Nucleocapsid/genetics , Polymerase Chain Reaction , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity
3.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis ; 103(3): 115699, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1800113

ABSTRACT

The Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay is 1 of the several real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays that received Emergency Use Authorization from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Here we report 4 SARS-CoV-2 samples that were reported as presumptive positives on the Cepheid platform while reported as positives on alternative RT-PCR platforms. Whole genome sequencing indicated that the samples were Delta variants and had point mutations in the N gene which potentially interfered with SARS-CoV-2 detection. Two types of point mutations were found in these samples in the US CDC 2019-nCoV Real time PCR N2 Probe region: C29203T and C29200T. C29203T is a novel point mutation, and C29200T has not been previously reported in the Delta variants. This underlines the fact that mutations in the real-time RT-PCR assay target region could hinder accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Mutation , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity , United States
4.
J Clin Lab Anal ; 36(4): e24285, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1694764

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic in March 2020. Initially, supply chain disruptions and increased demand for testing led to shortages of critical laboratory reagents and inadequate testing capacity. Thus, alternative means of biosample collection and testing were essential to overcome these obstacles and reduce viral transmission. This study aimed to 1) compare the sensitivity and specificity of Cepheid GeneXpert® IV and BioFire® FilmArray® 2.0 next generation detection systems to detect SARS-CoV-2, 2) evaluate the performance of both platforms using different biospecimen types, and 3) assess saline as an alternative to viral transport media (VTM) for sample collection. METHODS: A total of 1,080 specimens consisting of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs in VTM, NP swabs in saline, nasal swabs, oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, and saliva were collected from 216 enrollees. Limit of detection (LoD) assays, NP VTM and NP saline concordance, and saliva testing were performed on the BioFire® FilmArray® 2.0 Respiratory Panel 2.1 and Cepheid GeneXpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assays. RESULTS: LoD and comparative testing demonstrated increased sensitivity with the Cepheid compared with the BioFire® in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in NP VTM and saline, nasal, and OP swabs. Conversely, saliva testing on the Cepheid showed statistically significant lower sensitivity compared to the BioFire® . Finally, NP swabs in saline showed no significant difference compared with NP swabs in VTM on both platforms. CONCLUSION: The Cepheid and BioFire® NGDS are viable options to address a variety of public health needs providing rapid and reliable, point-of-care testing using a variety of clinical matrices.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , Humans , Nasopharynx , Saliva , Sensitivity and Specificity , Specimen Handling
5.
J Clin Virol Plus ; 2(2): 100067, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1693294

ABSTRACT

Accurate and rapid laboratory tests are essential for the prompt diagnosis of COVID-19, which is important to patients and infection control. The Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test is a real-time RT-PCR intended for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid from SARS-CoV-2 in upper respiratory specimens. In this study, we assessed the analytical performance characteristics of this rapid test for SARS-CoV-2 in 60 bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimens. BAL is a specimen type that is not authorized under EUA for the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test. The limit of detection of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test was 500 copies/ml. The overall agreement of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test was 100%. The Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test is sensitive and specific to aid in diagnosis of COVID-19 using bronchoalveolar lavage.

6.
Microbiol Spectr ; 9(3): e0149421, 2021 12 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1522929

ABSTRACT

Accurate and rapid diagnostic tests are a critical component for the early diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and of the overall control strategy for the current pandemic. Nucleic acid amplification tests are the gold standard for diagnosis of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and many real-time PCR diagnostic assays have been developed. Mutations that occur within the primer/probe binding regions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome can negatively impact the performance of diagnostic assays. Here, we report two single-point mutations in the N gene of SARS-CoV-2 associated with N gene target detection failures in the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay, the first a C to T mutation at position 29197, found in five patients, and the second a C to T mutation at position 29200, found in eight patients. By sequencing the Xpert amplicons, we showed both mutations to be located within the amplified region of the Xpert N gene target. This report highlights the necessity for multiple genetic targets and the continual monitoring and evaluation of diagnostic assay performance. IMPORTANCE This paper reports the identification of single-point mutations in the N gene of SARS-CoV-2 associated with a gene target failure by the Cepheid Xpert commercial system. In order to determine the mutation(s) responsible for the N gene detection failures, the genomic products from the Cepheid Xpert system were sequenced and compared to whole genomes of SARS-CoV-2 from clinical cases. This report is the first to our knowledge which characterizes the amplified PCR products of the Xpert system, confirming the mutations associated with the gene target failure. The mutations identified have previously been reported.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/genetics , Phosphoproteins/genetics , Point Mutation , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Humans , Indans , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods , Phylogeny , SARS-CoV-2/classification , Sensitivity and Specificity , Whole Genome Sequencing
8.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis ; 101(3): 115468, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1293712

ABSTRACT

Nasal and nasopharyngeal swab specimens tested by the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 were analyzed by whole-genome sequencing based on impaired detection of the N2 target. Each viral genome had at least one mutation in the N gene, which likely arose independently in the New York City and Pittsburgh study sites.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Cities/epidemiology , Databases, Genetic , Genome, Viral , Humans , Mutation , Phosphoproteins/genetics , United States/epidemiology
9.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis ; 100(4): 115381, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1269260

ABSTRACT

To compare the practicability (usability and satisfaction) and analytical performances of VitaPCR™ Flu A&B Assay (Credo Diagnostics Biomedical Pte. Ltd., Singapore, Republic of Singapore) and Xpert® Xpress Flu/RSV kit (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, USA), two rapid point-of-care (POC) nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) by reference to multiplex RT-PCR for respiratory viruses. Nasopharyngeal swabs (n=117) were collected from patients with influenza-like illness in Paris, France. Thawed specimens were further analyzed with both NAATs. The usability was comparable for both NAATs. Satisfaction questionnaire was better for the VitaPCR™ platform for the short time of test result in 20 minutes. Both NAATs showed comparable sensitivities (VitaPCRTM: 95.0%; Xpert® Xpress: 97.5%) and specificities (100%) for influenza A/B RNA detection, with excellent reliability and accuracy between both NAATs. Both VitaPCR™ and Xpert® Xpress NAATs can be implemented in hospital setting as POC NAATs to rapidly detect influenza A/B RNA in symptomatic patients.


Subject(s)
Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/instrumentation , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic/standards , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/instrumentation , Viruses/genetics , Humans , Influenza A virus/genetics , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/virology , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods , Nasopharynx/virology , Point-of-Care Testing/standards , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/standards , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and Specificity , Viruses/classification , Viruses/isolation & purification
10.
Acad Pathol ; 8: 23742895211011911, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1231237

ABSTRACT

Early in the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 pandemic, there was a progressive increase in diagnostic demands that developed within a relatively short period of time. On February 4, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services issued the Emergency Use Authorization for in vitro diagnostics assays for the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 virus. Subsequently, multiple assays were approved under the Emergency Use Authorization, including the Cepheid Xpert SARS-CoV-2 assay. Presented here is a description of the nationally coordinated verification study of the Cepheid assay that was performed within the Veteran's Affairs Health System. This coordinated study helped to expedite the verification process for a majority of the Veteran's Affairs system labs, preserved precious system resources, and highlighted the power of a national medical system in response to an emergency.

11.
J Clin Orthop Trauma ; 18: 181-186, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1213334

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) placed unprecedented pressure on the healthcare system. Many institutions implemented a government-mandated restructured set of safety and administrative protocols to treat urgent orthopaedic trauma patients. The objective of this study was to compare two cohorts of patients, a COVID group and non-COVID control group, and to evaluate the effectiveness of safety measures outlined in the Rutgers Orthopaedic Trauma Patient Safety Protocol (ROTPSP). Secondary outcomes were to elucidate risk factors for complications associated with fractures and COVID-19. METHODS: Patients treated for orthopaedic traumatic injuries were retrospectively identified between March and May 2020, and compared to a series of patients from the same time period in 2018. Main outcome measures included surgical site infections (SSI), length of stay (LOS), post-operative LOS (poLOS), presentation to OR time (PORT), and length of surgery. RESULTS: After review, 349 patients (201 non-COVID, 148 COVID) undergoing 426 surgeries were included. Average LOS (11.91 days vs. 9.27 days, p = 0.04), poLOS (9.68 days vs. 7.39 days, p = 0.03), and PORT (30.56 vs. 25.59 h, p < 0.01) was significantly shorter in the COVID cohort. There were less SSI in the COVID group (5) compared to the non-COVID group (14) (p = 0.03). Overall complications were significantly lower in the COVID group. Patients receiving Cepheid tests had significantly shorter LOS and poLOS compared to patients receiving the RNA and DiaSorin tests (p < 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively). The Cepheid test carried the best benefit-to-cost ratio, 0.10, p < 0.05. CONCLUSION: The restructuring of care protocols caused by COVID-19 did not negatively impact perioperative complication rates, PORT or LOS. Cepheid COVID test type administered upon admission plays an integral role in a patient's hospital course by reducing both length of stay and hospital costs. This information demonstrates we can continue to treat orthopaedic trauma patients safely during the COVID-19 pandemic by utilizing strict safety protocols.

12.
J Clin Microbiol ; 59(3)2021 02 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1125960

ABSTRACT

With the approach of respiratory virus season in the Northern Hemisphere, clinical microbiology and public health laboratories will need rapid diagnostic assays to distinguish severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections for diagnosis and surveillance. In this study, the clinical performance of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV test (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) for nasopharyngeal swab specimens was evaluated in four centers: Johns Hopkins Medical Microbiology Laboratory, Northwell Health Laboratories, NYC Public Health Laboratory, and Los Angeles County/University of Southern California (LAC+USC) Medical Center. A total of 319 nasopharyngeal swab specimens, positive for SARS-CoV-2 (n = 75), influenza A virus (n = 65), influenza B virus (n = 50), or RSV (n = 38) or negative (n = 91) by the standard-of-care nucleic acid amplification tests at each site, were tested using the Cepheid panel test. The overall positive percent agreement for the SARS-CoV-2 target was 98.7% (n = 74/75), and the negative agreement was 100% (n = 91), with all other analytes showing 100% total agreement (n = 153). Standard-of-care tests to which the Cepheid panel was compared included the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2, Cepheid Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV, GenMark ePlex respiratory panel, BioFire respiratory panel 2.1 and v1.7, DiaSorin Simplexa COVID-19 Direct, and Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assays. The Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV test showed high sensitivity and accuracy for all analytes included in the test. This test will provide a valuable clinical diagnostic and public health solution for detecting and differentiating SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B virus, and RSV infections during the current respiratory virus season.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods , Humans , Nasopharynx , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
13.
J Clin Microbiol ; 59(5)2021 04 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1083610

ABSTRACT

Community-based health care clinics and hospital outreach services have the potential to expand coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnostics to rural areas. However, reduced specimen stability during extended transport, the absence of a cold chain to centralized laboratories, and biosafety concerns surrounding specimen handling have limited this expansion. In the following study, we evaluated eNAT (Copan Italia, Brescia, Italy) as an alternative transport system to address the biosafety and stability challenges associated with expanding COVID-19 diagnostics to rural and remote regions. In this study, we demonstrated that high-titer severe acute respiratory virus syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) lysate placed into eNAT medium cannot be propagated in cell culture, supporting viral inactivation. To account for off-site testing in these settings, we assessed the stability of contrived nasopharyngeal (NP) specimens stored for up to 14 days in various transport media (eNAT, eSwab, viral transport medium [VTM], saline, and phosphate-buffered saline [PBS]) at 4°C, 22 to 25°C, and 35°C. The molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 was unaffected by sample storage temperature over the 2 weeks when stored in eNAT or PBS (change in cycle threshold, ≤1). In contrast, variable stability was observed across test conditions for other transport media. As eNAT can inactivate SARS-CoV-2, it may support COVID-19 diagnostics at the point of care. Evaluation of compatibility of eNAT with Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay demonstrated diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity equivalent to those of VTM. Taken together, these findings suggest that the implementation of eNAT as a collection device can expand COVID-19 testing to areas with limited health care access.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Culture Media , Specimen Handling/standards , Humans , Sensitivity and Specificity , Temperature
14.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis ; 99(2): 115238, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1071247

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented global demand on laboratory supplies required for testing. Sample pooling has been investigated by laboratories as a strategy to preserve testing capacity. We evaluate the performance of Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay for testing samples in pools of 4 and 6. Clinical samples containing SARS-CoV-2, and confirmed negative clinical samples were used to create sample pools. Clinical samples had 'neat' Xpert® E gene cycle threshold values ranging between 20 and 28 and all were detected qualitatively when contained in pools of 4 or 6 samples. For these samples, pooling had a median change in cycle threshold value of 2.0 in pools of 4, and of 2.9 in pools of 6. With the use of Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay, pooling of 4 or 6 samples may be an effective strategy to increase testing capacity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Humans , Nasopharynx/virology , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity
15.
Access Microbiol ; 2(12): acmi000176, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1045782

ABSTRACT

Sputum and endotracheal aspirates (ETs) are not among the vendor-approved specimens for the Cepheid Xpert SARS-CoV-2 assay. However, they are the common lower respiratory tract specimens submitted for laboratory diagnosis. Testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in lower respiratory tract samples is required for the discharge of patients from coronavirus disease (COVID) units at some institutions. We developed a protocol used for testing unliquified viscous sputum or tracheal aspirate with the Cepheid Xpert SARS-CoV-2 assay.

16.
J Appl Lab Med ; 5(6): 1307-1312, 2020 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-696741

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Numerous nucleic acid amplification assays utilizing different target genes of the SARS-CoV-2 genome have received emergency use authorization (EUA) by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Limited data are available comparing the test performance characteristics of these assays. METHODS: A diagnostic comparison study was performed to evaluate the performance of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay compared to the Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay using clinical nasopharyngeal specimens. Agreement between the two assays was assessed by overall, positive, and negative percent agreement and Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 104 (54 positive and 50 negative) clinical nasopharyngeal samples were tested by both assays. Using the Panther Fusion as a reference standard, the Xpert demonstrated an overall agreement of 99.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 94.8-100], positive percent agreement of 98.1% (95% CI: 90.1-100), and a negative percent agreement of 100% (95% CI: 94.2-100). The kappa coefficient was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.94-1.0). One sample positive by the Panther Fusion with a cycle threshold (Ct) of 38.6 was found to be reproducibly negative by the Xpert assay. CONCLUSIONS: The Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay provides test performance comparable to the Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay while offering laboratories rapid, on-demand testing capacity.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/instrumentation , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/instrumentation , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , Automation, Laboratory/instrumentation , Betacoronavirus/genetics , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Humans , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/statistics & numerical data , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction/instrumentation , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Point-of-Care Systems/statistics & numerical data , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic/statistics & numerical data , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/instrumentation , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL