Multicenter clinical evaluation of a novel transcription-mediated amplification assay for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing.

INTRODUCTION: The onset and spread of COVID-19 pandemic has forced clinical laboratories to rapidly expand testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2. This study evaluates the clinical performance of the TMA Procleix SARS-CoV-2 assay in comparison to the RT-PCR assay Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. METHODS: Between November 2020 and February 2021, 610 upper-respiratory specimens received for routine SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing were prospectively collected and selected at the Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron and the Hospital Universitari Bellvitge in Barcelona, Spain. All samples were processed in parallel with the TMA and the RT-PCR assays, and results were compared. Discrepancies were retested by an additional RT-PCR method and the clinical history of these patients was reviewed. RESULTS: Overall, the level of concordance between both assays was 92.0% (κ, 0.772). Most discordant results (36/38, 94.7%) corresponded to samples testing positive with the TMA assay and negative with the RT-PCR method. Of these discrepant cases, most (28/36, 77.8%) were finally classified as confirmed or probable SARS-CoV-2 cases according to the discrepant analysis. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the TMA Procleix SARS-CoV-2 assay performed well for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a multisite clinical setting. This novel TMA assay demonstrated a greater sensitivity in comparison to RT-PCR methods for the molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2. This higher sensitivity but also the qualitative feature of this detection of SARS-CoV-2 should be considered when making testing algorithm decisions.

Assessment of the clinical and analytical performance of the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay using the VALCOR protocol.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of diagnostic testing against curbing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The urgent need and scale for diagnostic tools resulted in manufacturers of SARS-CoV-2 assays receiving emergency authorization that lacked robust analytical or clinical evaluation. As it is highly likely that testing for SARS-CoV-2 will continue to play a central role in public health, the performance characteristics of assays should be evaluated to ensure reliable diagnostic outcomes are achieved. METHODS: VALCOR or "VALidation of SARS-CORona Virus-2 assays" is a study protocol designed to set up a framework for test validation of SARS-CoV-2 virus assays. Using clinical samples collated from VALCOR, the performance of Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay was assessed against a standard comparator assay. Diagnostic test parameters such as sensitivity, specificity and overall per cent agreement were calculated for the clinical performance of Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay. RESULTS: A total of 180 clinical samples were tested with an addition of 40 diluted clinical specimens to determine the limit of detection. When compared to the standard comparator assay Aptima had a sensitivity of 100.0% [95% CI 95.9-100.0] and specificity of 96.7% [95% CI 90.8-99.3]. The overall percent agreement was 98.3% with an excellent Cohen's coefficient of κ = 0.967 [95% CI 0.929-1.000]. For the limit of detection, Aptima was able to detect all of the diluted clinical samples. CONCLUSION: In conclusion. validation of Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay using clinical samples collated through the VALCOR protocol showed excellent test performance. Additionally, Aptima demonstrated high analytical sensitivity by detecting all diluted clinical samples corresponding to a low limit of detection.

SARS-CoV-2 origin, myths and diagnostic technology developments

Background: After the first case of COVID-19 being announced in China in December 2019, various diagnostic technologies have been developed at unprecedented pace with the aim of providing a basis for accurate clinical intervention. However, some assays including CRISPR-based diagnostics and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) have been less explored. As new COVID-19 technologies emerge, there is need for them to be assessed, validated and improved upon. Moreover, there is paucity of data on the essential factors governing the selection of an appropriate diagnostic approach within the correct timeframe. Myths and origin of SARS-CoV-2 remain to be controversial. Consequently, this review aims at exploring the current COVID-19 diagnostic technologies, performance evaluation, principles, suitability, specificity, sensitivity, successes and challenges of the technologies for laboratory and bedside testing. Main Body: To date, there exist more publications on COVID-19 diagnostics as compared to the Zika virus. The SARS-CoV-2 virus genome profiles were readily available by 31st of December 2019. This was attributed to the fast-paced sharing of the epidemiological and diagnostics data of COVID-19. Timely profiling of the virus genome accelerated the development of diagnostic technologies. Furthermore, the rapid publication of studies that evaluated several diagnostic methods available provided baseline information on how the various technologies work and paved way for development of novel technologies. Conclusion: Up to date, RT-PCR is the most preferred as compared to the other assays. This is despite the repeated false negatives reported in many of the study findings. Considering that COVID-19 has caused devastating effects on the economy, healthcare systems, agriculture and culture, timely and accurate detection of the virus is paramount in the provision of targeted therapy hence reducing chances of drug resistance, increased treatment costs and morbidity. However, information on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 still remains elusive. Furthermore, knowledge and perception of the patients toward management of SARS-CoV-2 are also paramount to proper diagnosis and management of the pandemic. Future implications of the misperceptions are that they may lead to increased non-compliance to SARS-CoV-2-related World Health Organization (WHO) policies and guidelines.

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.

Multicenter clinical evaluation of a novel transcription-mediated amplification assay for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing.

INTRODUCTION: The onset and spread of COVID-19 pandemic has forced clinical laboratories to rapidly expand testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2. This study evaluates the clinical performance of the TMA Procleix SARS-CoV-2 assay in comparison to the RT-PCR assay AllplexTM SARS-CoV-2 for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. METHODS: Between November 2020 and February 2021, 610 upper-respiratory specimens received for routine SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing were prospectively collected and selected at the Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron and the Hospital Universitari Bellvitge in Barcelona, Spain. All samples were processed in parallel with the TMA and the RT-PCR assays, and results were compared. Discrepancies were retested by an additional RT-PCR method and the clinical history of these patients was reviewed. RESULTS: Overall, the level of concordance between both assays was 92.0% (κ, 0.772). Most discordant results (36/38, 94.7%) corresponded to samples testing positive with the TMA assay and negative with the RT-PCR method. Of these discrepant cases, most (28/36, 77.8%) were finally classified as confirmed or probable SARS-CoV-2 cases according to the discrepant analysis. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the TMA Procleix SARS-CoV-2 assay performed well for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a multisite clinical setting. This novel TMA assay demonstrated a greater sensitivity in comparison to RT-PCR methods for the molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2. This higher sensitivity but also the qualitative feature of this detection of SARS-CoV-2 should be considered when making testing algorithm decisions.

Clinical evaluation of the Procleix SARS-CoV-2 assay, a sensitive, high-throughput test that runs on an automated system.

Testing is crucial in controlling COVID-19. The Procleix® SARS-CoV-2 assay, a transcription-mediated amplification nucleic acid test that runs on an automated system, was evaluated using inactivated virus and clinical samples. The sensitivity of the assay was assessed using heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 and compared to 3 other tests. Clinical validation utilized 2 sets of samples: (1) Nasal, nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal samples (n = 963) from asymptomatic individuals, and (2) nasopharyngeal samples from symptomatic patients: 100 positive and 100 negative by RT-PCR. The Procleix assay had greater sensitivity (3-fold to 100-fold) than the comparators and had high specificity (100%) in asymptomatic subjects. In symptomatic patients, the Procleix assay detected 100% of PCR-positives and found 24 positives in the initial PCR-negatives. Eighteen of these were confirmed positive and 6 were inconclusive. These studies showed that the Procleix SARS-CoV-2 assay was a sensitive and specific tool for detecting COVID-19.

Diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 with Antigen Testing, Transcription-Mediated Amplification and Real-Time PCR.

This study was performed as a head-to-head comparison of the performance characteristics of (1) two SARS-CoV-2-specific rapid antigen assays with real-time PCR as gold standard as well as (2) a fully automated high-throughput transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) assay and real-time PCR in a latent class analysis-based test comparison without a gold standard with several hundred samples in a low prevalence "real world" setting. Recorded sensitivity and specificity of the NADAL and the LumiraDx antigen assays and the Hologic Aptima SARS-CoV-2 TMA assay were 0.1429 (0.0194, 0.5835), 0.7644 (0.7016, 0.8174), and 0.7157 (0, 1) as well as 0.4545 (0.2022, 0.7326), 0.9954 (0.9817, 0.9988), and 0.9997 (not estimable), respectively. Agreement kappa between the positive results of the two antigen-based assays was 0.060 (0.002, 0.167) and 0.659 (0.492, 0.825) for TMA and real-time PCR. Samples with low viral load as indicated by cycle threshold (Ct) values > 30 were generally missed by both antigen assays, while 1:10 pooling suggested higher sensitivity of TMA compared to real-time PCR. In conclusion, both sensitivity and specificity speak in favor of the use of the LumiraDx rather than the NADAL antigen assay, while TMA results are comparably as accurate as PCR, when applied in a low prevalence setting.

The Hologic Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay enables high ratio pooling saving reagents and improving turnaround time.

BACKGROUND: The Hologic Aptima™ TMA SARS-CoV-2 assay was employed to test pooled nasopharyngeal (NP) samples to evaluate the performance of pooled sample testing and characterize variables influencing results. METHODS: Results on 1033 previously tested NP samples were retrieved to characterize the relative light units (RLU) of SARS-CoV-2-positive samples in the tested population. The pooling strategy of combining 10 SARS-CoV-2 samples into one pool (10/1) was used in this study. The results were compared with neat sample testing using the same Aptima™ TMA SARS-CoV-2 assay and also the CDC RT-PCR and the Cepheid SARS-CoV-2 assays. RESULTS: The Aptima assay compares favorably with both CDC RT-PCR and the Cepheid SARS-CoV-2 assays. Once samples are pooled 10 to 1 as in our experiments, the resulting signal strength of the assay suffers. A divide opens between pools assembled from strong-positive versus only weak-positive samples. Pools of the former can be reliably detected with positive percent agreement (PPA) of 95.2%, while pools of the latter are frequently misclassified as negative with PPA of 40%. When the weak-positive samples with kRLU value lower than 1012 constitute 3.4% of the total sample profile, the assay PPA approaches 93.4% suggesting that 10/1 pooled sample testing by the Aptima assay is an effective screening tool for SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSION: Performing pooled testing, one should monitor the weak positives with kRLU lower than 1012 or quantification cycle (Cq) value higher than 35 on an ongoing basis and adjust pooling approaches to avoid reporting false negatives.

Minipool testing for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in United States blood donors.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 RNA prevalence in blood donors from large geographic areas of high community transmission is limited. We tested residual donor plasma minipools (MPs) to determine SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia prevalence in six United States areas. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: Blood donations collected from 7 March 2020 to 25 September 2020 were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (vRNA) in MP of 6 or 16 donations using the Grifols Procleix SARS-CoV-2 research-use only (RUO) transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) assay. Reactive results were confirmed using an alternate target region TMA assay. Reactive MPs were tested by TMA after serial dilution to estimate viral load. Testing for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and infectivity was performed. RESULTS: A total of 17,995 MPs corresponding to approximately 258,000 donations were tested for vRNA. Three confirmed reactive MP16 were identified. The estimated prevalence of vRNA reactive donations was 1.16/100,000 (95% CI 0.40, 3.42). The vRNA-reactive samples were non-reactive for antibody, and the estimated viral loads of the (presumed single) positive donations within each MP ranged from <1000 to <4000 copies/ml. When tested, no infectivity was observed in inoculated permissive cell cultures. DISCUSSION: Blood donation MP-nucleic acid testing (NAT) indicated that SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia is infrequent and, when detected, the vRNA was at low concentrations. Only one RNA-reactive MP could be tested for infectivity for operational reasons and was not infectious in cell culture. These findings support current recommendations from international and national regulatory agencies to not screen donors by NAT.

Evaluation of the analytical performance and specificity of a SARS-CoV-2 transcription-mediated amplification assay.

The ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic requires fast and accurate high-throughput diagnostic tools. To evaluate the analytical performance of the Hologic Aptima transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA from respiratory samples we analysed 103 clinical and proficiency panel samples pre-tested by real-time RT-PCR (Altona, RealStar) and found a positive percent agreement (sensitivity) of 95.7 % and a negative percent agreement (specificity) of 100 %. The limit of detection of the Aptima test was 150 copies/mL determined as 95 % detection probability. To further assess the Aptima assay's specificity we prospectively analysed 7545 clinical specimens from the upper and lower respiratory tract sent for the purpose of routine SARS-CoV-2 screening. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 16/7545 (0.2 %) samples by the TMA assay and confirmed independently by the Xpert SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR (Cepheid); in one case a previous discrepant result was confirmed as true SARS-CoV-2 infection in a subsequent sample from the same patient. Results from the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 TMA assay agreed well with RT-PCR and showed an excellent specificity in a large number of routine specimens despite the low prevalence at that time of the pandemic, indicating that this assay can be used even for screening purposes.

High-Throughput Transcription-mediated amplification on the Hologic Panther is a highly sensitive method of detection for SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: As the demand for laboratory testing for SARS-CoV-2 increases, additional varieties of testing methodologies are being considered. While real time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has performed as the main method for virus detection, other methods are becoming available, including transcription mediated amplification (TMA). The Hologic Aptima SARS-CoV-2 Assay utilizes TMA as a target amplification mechanism, and it has only recently received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 Assay to RTPCR as a means of SARS-CoV-2 detection in a diagnostic setting. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a limit-of-detection study (LoD) to assess the analytical sensitivity of TMA and RT-PCR. This preceded a comparison of the methods using previously evaluated clinical specimens (nasopharyngeal swabs) using 116 human specimens tested by both methodologies. Specimens included sixty-one (61) specimens found reactive by real-time PCR, fifty-one (51) found non-reactive, and four (4) deemed inconclusive. RESULTS: The Aptima SARS-CoV-2 Assay showed a markedly higher analytical sensitivity than RT-PCR by LoD study. Evaluation of clinical specimens resulted in fewer inconclusive results by the SARS-CoV-2 assay, leading to potentially higher clinical sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Higher analytical sensitivity may explain TMA's ability to ascertain for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genome in human specimens deemed inconclusive by real-time PCR. TMA provides an effective, highly sensitive means of detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal specimens.