Impact of the loss of Laboratory Developed Mass Spectrometry testing at a major academic medical center.

Background: Our laboratory historically performed immunosuppressant and definitive opioid testing in-house as laboratory developed (LDT) mass spectrometry-based tests. However, staffing constraints and supply chain challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic forced us to refer this testing to a national reference laboratory. The VALID Act could impose onerous requirements for laboratories to develop LDTs. To explore the potential effect of these additional regulatory hurdles, we used the loss of our own LDT tests to assess the impact on patient care and hospital budgets. Methods: Laboratory information systems data and historical data associated with test costs were used to calculate turnaround times and financial impact. Results: Referral testing has extended the reporting of immunosuppressant results by an average of approximately one day and up to two days at the 95th percentile. We estimate that discontinuing in-house opioid testing has cost our health system over half a million dollars in the year since testing was discontinued. Conclusions: Barriers that discourage laboratories from developing in-house testing, particularly in the absence of FDA-cleared alternatives, can be expected to have a detrimental effect on patient care and hospital finances.

COVIDSeq as Laboratory Developed Test (LDT) for Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern (VOC).

Rapid classification and detection of SARS-CoV-2 variants have been critical in comprehending the virus's transmission dynamics. Clinical manifestation of the infection is influenced by comorbidities such as age, immune status, diabetes, and the infecting variant. Thus, clinical management may differ for new variants. For example, some monoclonal antibody treatments are variant-specific. Yet, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved test for detecting the SARS-CoV-2 variant is unavailable. A laboratory-developed test (LDT) remains a viable option for reporting the infecting variant for clinical intervention or epidemiological purposes. Accordingly, we have validated the Illumina COVIDSeq assay as an LDT according to the guidelines prescribed by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) and Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA). The limit of detection (LOD) of this test is Ct<30 (~15 viral copies) and >200X genomic coverage, and the test is 100% specific in the detection of existing variants. The test demonstrated 100% precision in inter-day, intra-day, and intra-laboratory reproducibility studies. It is also 100% accurate, defined by reference strain testing and split sample testing with other CLIA laboratories. Advanta Genetics LDT COVIDSeq has been reviewed by CAP inspectors and is under review by FDA for Emergency Use Authorization.

Validation of laboratory developed serology assays for detection of IgG antibody to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in the South African population.

Serological assays for detection of IgG, IgM or IgA against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) play an important role in surveillance, antibody persistence, vaccine coverage and infection rate. Serological assays, including both ELISA and rapid lateral flow assays, are available commercially but the cost limits their accessibility for low resource countries. Although serological assays based on mammalian-expressed SARS-CoV-2 spike protein have been previously described these assays need to be validated using samples from local populations within the continent, or country, in which they will be used. Interpretation of results could be influenced by differences in specificity and potential for pre-existing cross-reactive antibodies. In this study, we investigated two laboratory developed serological assays, an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and an immunofluorescent assay (IFA), developed using recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, for use in South African populations. The tests were compared with commercially available and South Africa Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAPHRA) approved assays. A panel of 100 residual diagnostic serum samples, collected prior to the pandemic, were tested on three separate occasions to determine a suitable cut-off value for differentiation of positive from negative samples. Specificity of 96 % and 100 % for ELISA and IFA respectively was demonstrated. A total of 82/89 serum samples collected between days 2-94 after onset of illness from patients with a positive molecular result were positive for IgG antibody. The sensitivity of the laboratory developed assays on samples collected > one week after onset of illness was shown to be 100 % and 98.8 % for ELISA and IFA respectively. Positive predictive values were 92.1 % for ELISA and 91.0 % for IFA using characterization of samples as positive based on confirmation of infection using RT-PCR. Serum samples (n = 62) collected from RT-PCR positive patients infected with either ancestral, or emerging variants such as Beta or Delta, tested positive for IgG antibody (62/62) using the laboratory developed assays confirming application of the assays regardless of currently circulating variant during the time of evaluation. High concordance was demonstrated between the laboratory developed assays and the commercial immunoassay among samples collected from South African populations, although the small sample size, especially for the comparison with commercial assays, must be noted. If all quality assurance controls are in place, the use of local laboratory developed assays for high-throughput screening in resource-constrained environments is a realistic alternative option.

At-Home Specimen Self-Collection and Self-Testing for Sexually Transmitted Infection Screening Demand Accelerated by the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Review of Laboratory Implementation Issues.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic reduced the sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing volume due to social-distancing and stay-at-home orders, among other reasons. These events highlighted previously known benefits of at-home STI self-testing or specimen self-collection and accelerated testing demand via telemedicine. We review testing outside traditional clinical settings. We focus on three curable bacterial STIs among the top 10 U.S. nationally notifiable conditions with screening recommendations: syphilis, gonorrhea (Neisseria gonorrhoeae, also known as the gonococcus [GC]), and chlamydia (Chlamydia trachomatis). At least 19 million GC/C. trachomatis (GC/CT) screening or diagnostic tests are performed annually, presenting a considerable challenge during the pandemic. Unlike for HIV, STI at-home tests are currently not commercially available. However, innovative telemedicine providers currently offer services where specimen self-collection kits are mailed to patients at home who then ship them to laboratories for processing. We discuss technical and regulatory aspects of modifications for home-based specimen self-collection. The telemedicine provider typically manages and communicates results, provides linkage to care, and is responsible for billing and case reporting. We also describe rapid testing devices in development that may present an opportunity for future self-testing. In summary, COVID-19 has accelerated the evaluation and development of STI self-tests and specimen self-collection. The remaining obstacles are high price, regulatory approval, support for laboratories offering the service, and uncertainty regarding whether target populations with the greatest need are reached effectively. However, increased testing, convenience, and privacy are potential benefits that may enhance uptake and outlast the pandemic.

Comparison of the Panther Fusion and a laboratory-developed test targeting the envelope gene for detection of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Numerous nucleic acid amplification assays have recently received emergency use authorization (EUA) for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and there is a need to assess their test performance relative to one another. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the test performance of the Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay targeting two regions of open reading frame 1ab (ORF1ab) to a high complexity molecular-based, laboratory-developed EUA from Stanford Health Care (SHC) targeting the SARS-CoV-2 envelope (E) gene. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a diagnostic comparison study by testing nasopharyngeal samples on the two assays. Assay agreement was assessed by overall percent agreement and Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 184 nasopharyngeal samples were tested using the two assays, of which 180 showed valid results and were included for the comparative analysis. Overall percent agreement between the assays was 98.3 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 95.2-99.7) and kappa coefficient was 0.97 (95 % CI 0.93-1.0). One sample was detected on the SHC laboratory developed test (LDT) and not on the Panther Fusion, and had a Ct of 35.9. Conversely, 2 samples were detected on the Panther Fusion and not on the LDT, and had Ct values of 37.2 and 36.6. CONCLUSION: The Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay and the SHC LDT perform similarly on clinical nasopharyngeal swab specimens. Other considerations, including reagent availability, turnaround time, labor requirements, cost and instrument throughput should guide the decision of which assay to perform.

COVID-19 Pandemic Spurs Evolution of an Academic Pathology Department and Laboratory.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused much suffering through disease and death, disruption of daily life, and economic havoc. Global health infrastructure has been challenged, in some cases failing. In the United States, the inability of laboratories to provide adequate testing for the causative pathogen, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, has been the subject of negative press and national debate. Even so, these challenges have prompted pathology practices and clinical labs to change their organizations and operations for the better. The natural positive evolution of the University of Oklahoma Department of Pathology and OU Health Laboratories has been greatly accelerated by the global pandemic. While developing a substantial COVID testing response, our department of pathology and laboratories have evolved a much nimbler organizational structure, established an important research partnership, built a translational research resource, created a significant reference lab capability, and completed many key hires against a national background of hiring freezes and pay cuts. Also, the high visibility of the clinical lab and pathologists during the outbreak has reinforced the value of lab medicine to patient care across our health system. In the midst of significant ongoing changes to the structure and financing of our underlying organizations, high trust among departmental, hospital, health system, and medical school leadership during the pandemic has promoted these positive changes, allowing us to emerge much stronger from this crisis.

Metabolomic Laboratory-Developed Tests: Current Status and Perspectives.

Laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) are a subset of in vitro diagnostic devices, which the US Food and Drug Administration defines as "tests that are manufactured by and used within a single laboratory". The review describes the emergence and history of LDTs. The current state and development prospects of LDTs based on metabolomics are analyzed. By comparing LDTs with the scientific metabolomics study of human bio samples, the characteristic features of metabolomic LDT are shown, revealing its essence, strengths, and limitations. The possibilities for further developments and scaling of metabolomic LDTs and their potential significance for healthcare are discussed. The legal aspects of LDT regulation in the United States, European Union, and Singapore, demonstrating different approaches to this issue, are also provided. Based on the data presented in the review, recommendations were made on the feasibility and ways of further introducing metabolomic LDTs into practice.

Modifying laboratory testing via home brew during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Rapid development and deployment of diagnostic testing for COVID-19 have been a key component of the public health response to the pandemic. Out of necessity, academic and other clinical laboratories developed laboratory testing innovations for COVID-19 to meet clinical testing demands. In addition to constraints on local testing supplies and equipment, a rapidly changing regulatory framework created challenges for translational scientists. Illustrative examples of approaches used to develop laboratory tests during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate effective team science approaches to this challenging clinical care and public health emergency. These experiences and the associated lessons learned are relevant to the development of public health response plans for future pandemics.

Evaluation of the BioFire® COVID-19 test and Respiratory Panel 2.1 for rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab samples.

The BioFire® COVID-19 Test and Respiratory Panel 2.1 (RP2.1) are rapid, fully automated assays for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in nasopharyngeal swabs. In the case of the RP2.1, an additional 21 viral and bacterial pathogens can be detected. Both tests have received emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration and Interim Order authorization from Health Canada for use in clinical laboratories. We evaluated the performance characteristics of these tests in comparison to a laboratory-developed real-time PCR assay targeting the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and E genes. A total of 78 tests were performed using the BioFire COVID-19 Test, including 30 clinical specimens and 48 tests in a limit of detection study; 57 tests were performed using the RP2.1 for evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 detection, including 30 clinical specimens and 27 tests for limit of detection. Results showed 100% concordance between the BioFire assays and the laboratory-developed test for all clinical samples tested, and acceptable performance of both BioFire assays at their stated limits of detection. Conclusively, the BioFire COVID-19 Test and RP2.1 are highly sensitive assays that can be effectively used in the clinical laboratory for rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Comparison of the Accula SARS-CoV-2 Test with a Laboratory-Developed Assay for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Clinical Nasopharyngeal Specimens.

Several point-of-care (POC) molecular tests have received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The test performance characteristics of the Accula (Mesa Biotech) SARS-CoV-2 POC test need to be evaluated to inform its optimal use. The aim of this study was to assess the test performance of the Accula SARS-CoV-2 test. The performance of the Accula test was assessed by comparing results of 100 nasopharyngeal swab samples previously characterized by the Stanford Health Care EUA laboratory-developed test (SHC-LDT), targeting the envelope (E) gene. Assay concordance was assessed by overall percent agreement, positive percent agreement (PPA), negative percent agreement (NPA), and Cohen's kappa coefficient. Overall percent agreement between the assays was 84.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.3 to 90.6%), PPA was 68.0% (95% CI, 53.3 to 80.5%), and the kappa coefficient was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82). Sixteen specimens detected by the SHC-LDT were not detected by the Accula test and showed low viral load burden, with a median cycle threshold value of 37.7. NPA was 100% (95% CI, 94.2 to 100%). Compared to the SHC-LDT, the Accula SARS-CoV-2 test showed excellent negative agreement. However, positive agreement was low for samples with low viral load. The false-negative rate of the Accula POC test calls for a more thorough evaluation of POC test performance characteristics in clinical settings and for confirmatory testing in individuals with moderate to high pretest probability of SARS-CoV-2 who test negative on Accula.

Brief comparative evaluation of six open one-step RT-qPCR mastermixes for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA using a Taqman probe.

BACKGROUND: Facing the emergence of a new RNA virus, clinical laboratories are often helpless in the case of a shortage of reagents recommended by Reference Centres. OBJECTIVES: To compare five open one step RT-qPCR reagents to the SuperScript™ III Platinum™ One-Step qRT-PCR kit (Invitrogen) considered as the reference one in France at the beginning of the pandemic for detection of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory specimens by using a laboratory-developed assay targeting the viral RNA dependant RNA polymerase (RdRp) gene. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 51 NUCLISENS easyMAG extracts from respiratory specimens was tested on ABI 7500 thermocycler with TaqMan Fast Virus 1-Step Master Mix (Applied Biosystems), Luna® Universal Probe One-Step RT-qPCR Kit (New England Biolabs), GoTaq® Probe 1- Step RT-qPCR System (Promega), LightCycler® Multiplex RNA Virus Master (Roche) and One-step PrimeScript RT-PCR kit (Takara). The CT values obtained using the 5 challenged reagents were compared to those obtained using the reference assay. RESULTS: The percentages of concordance were all above 95 %. When comparing the CT values of the 48 extracts exhibiting CT values < 35 obtained with the reference reagent, the results were similar between the reagents although the differences of CT values were quite dispersed. CONCLUSIONS: All five reagents can be considered as alternative reagents to the reference for detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

Assessing oligonucleotide designs from early lab developed PCR diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 using the PCR_strainer pipeline.

INTRODUCTION: During the first month of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, rapid development of PCR-based diagnostic tests became a global priority so that timely diagnosis, isolation, and contact tracing could minimize the advancing pandemic surge. Designing these tests for broad, long-term detection was complicated by limited information about the novel virus' genome sequence and how it might mutate during global spread and adaptation to humans. METHODS: We assessed eight widely adopted lab developed PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 against 15,001 SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences. Using a custom bioinformatic pipeline called PCR_strainer, we identified all mismatches and sequence variants in genome locations targeted by 15 sets of primer/probe oligonucleotides from these assays. RESULTS: For 12 out of 15 primer/probe sets, over 98 % of SARS-CoV-2 genomes had no mismatches. Two primer/probe sets contained a single mismatch in the reverse primer that was present in over 99 % of genomes. One primer/probe set targeted a location with extensive polymorphisms with 23 sequence observed variants at the forward primer location. One of these variants, which contains three nucleotide mismatches, arose in February as part of the emergence of a viral clade and was present in 18.8 % of the genomes we analyzed. DISCUSSION: Most early PCR diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 remain inclusive of circulating viral diversity, but three assays with extensive mismatches highlight assay design challenges for novel pathogens and provide valuable lessons for PCR assay design during future outbreaks. Our bioinformatics pipeline is also presented as a useful general-purpose tool for assessing PCR diagnostics assays against circulating strains.