ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Automation , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , High-Throughput Screening Assays , Humans , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques , Retrospective Studies , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
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.