Evaluation of four laboratory-based high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 automated antigen tests compared to RT-PCR on nasal and oropharyngeal samples.

BACKGROUND: The demand for RT-PCR testing has been unprecedented during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Fully automated antigen tests (AAT) are less cumbersome than RT-PCR, but data on performance compared to RT-PCR are scarce. METHODS: The study consists of two parts. A retrospective analytical part, comparing the performance of four different AAT on 100 negative and 204 RT-PCR positive deep oropharyngeal samples divided into four groups based on RT-PCR cycle of quantification levels. In the prospective clinical part, 206 individuals positive for and 199 individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 were sampled from either the anterior nasal cavity (mid-turbinate) or by deep oropharyngeal swabs or both. The performance of AATs was compared to RT-PCR. RESULTS: The overall analytical sensitivity of the AATs differed significantly from 42% (95% CI 35-49) to 60% (95% CI 53-67) with 100% analytical specificity. Clinical sensitivity of the AATs differed significantly from 26% (95% CI 20-32) to 88% (95% CI 84-93) with significant higher sensitivity for mid-turbinate nasal swabs compared to deep oropharyngeal swabs. Clinical specificity varied from 97% to 100%. CONCLUSION: All AATs were highly specific for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Three of the four AATs were significantly more sensitive than the fourth AAT both in terms of analytical and clinical sensitivity. Anatomical test location significantly influenced the clinical sensitivity of AATs.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in exhaled breath from non-hospitalized COVID-19-infected individuals.

The diagnosis of COVID-19 is based on detection of SARS-CoV-2 in oro-/nasopharyngel swabs, but due to discomfort and minor risk during the swab procedure, detection of SARS-CoV-2 has been investigated in other biological matrixes. In this proof-of-concept study, individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection performed a daily air sample for five days. Air samples were obtained through a non-invasive electrostatic air sampler. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA was determined with qRT-PCR. The association of positive samples with different exposures was evaluated through mixed-effect models. We obtained 665 air samples from 111 included participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Overall, 52 individuals (46.8%) had at least one positive air sample, and 129 (19.4%) air samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Participants with symptoms or a symptom duration ≤ four days had significantly higher odds of having a positive air sample. Cycle threshold values were significantly lower in samples obtained ≤ 4 days from symptom onset. Neither variant of SARS-CoV-2 nor method of air sampling were associated with a positive air sample. We demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is detectable in human breath by electrostatic air sampling with the highest detection rate closest to symptom onset. We suggest further evaluation of the air sampling technique to increase sensitivity.

A nationwide analytical and clinical evaluation of 44 rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in massive testing by Rapid Antigen Tests (RAT) without solid independent data regarding clinical performance being available. Thus, decision on purchase of a specific RAT may rely on manufacturer-provided data and limited peer-reviewed data. METHODS: This study consists of two parts. In the retrospective analytical part, 33 RAT from 25 manufacturers were compared to RT-PCR on 100 negative and 204 positive deep oropharyngeal cavity samples divided into four groups based on RT-PCR Cq levels. In the prospective clinical part, nearly 200 individuals positive for SARS-CoV-2 and nearly 200 individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 by routine RT-PCR testing were retested within 72 h for each of 44 included RAT from 26 manufacturers applying RT-PCR as the reference method. RESULTS: The overall analytical sensitivity differed significantly between the 33 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-4.8) to 42% (95% CI 35-49). All RAT presented analytical specificities of 100%. Likewise, the overall clinical sensitivity varied significantly between the 44 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-4.8) to 94% (95% CI 91-97). All RAT presented clinical specificities between 98 and 100%. CONCLUSION: The study presents analytical as well as clinical performance data for 44 commercially available RAT compared to the same RT-PCR test. The study enables identification of individual RAT that has significantly higher sensitivity than other included RAT and may aid decision makers in selecting between the included RAT. FUNDING: The study was funded by a participant fee for each test and the Danish Regions.

SARS-CoV-2 detection using reverse transcription strand invasion based amplification and a portable compact size instrument.

Rapid nucleic-acid based tests that can be performed by non-professionals outside laboratory settings could help the containment of the pandemic SARS-CoV-2 virus and may potentially prevent further widespread lockdowns. Here, we present a novel compact portable detection instrument (the Egoo Health System) for extraction-free detection of SARS-CoV-2 using isothermal reverse transcription strand invasion based amplification (RT-SIBA). The SARS-CoV-2 RT-SIBA assay can be performed directly on crude oropharyngeal swabs without nucleic acid extraction with a reaction time of 30 min. The Egoo Health system uses a capsule system, which is automatically sealed tight in the Egoo instrument after applying the sample, resulting in a closed system optimal for molecular isothermal amplification. The performance of the Egoo Health System is comparable to the PCR instrument with an analytical sensitivity of 25 viral RNA copies per SARS-CoV-2 RT-SIBA reaction and a clinical sensitivity and specificity between 87.0-98.4% and 96.6-98.2% respectively.

A non-enzymatic, isothermal strand displacement and amplification assay for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

The current nucleic acid signal amplification methods for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection heavily rely on the functions of biological enzymes which imposes stringent transportation and storage conditions, high cost and global supply shortages. Here, a non-enzymatic whole genome detection method based on a simple isothermal signal amplification approach is developed for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and potentially any types of nucleic acids regardless of their size. The assay, termed non-enzymatic isothermal strand displacement and amplification (NISDA), is able to quantify 10 RNA copies.µL-1. In 164 clinical oropharyngeal RNA samples, NISDA assay is 100 % specific, and it is 96.77% and 100% sensitive when setting up in the laboratory and hospital, respectively. The NISDA assay does not require RNA reverse-transcription step and is fast (<30 min), affordable, highly robust at room temperature (>1 month), isothermal (42 °C) and user-friendly, making it an excellent assay for broad-based testing.

Point-of-care tests for influenza A and B viruses and RSV in emergency departments - indications, impact on patient management and possible gains by syndromic respiratory testing, Capital Region, Denmark, 2018.

BackgroundPoint-of-care tests (POCT) for influenza A and B viruses and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) were implemented in emergency departments of all hospitals in the Capital Region of Denmark in 2018.AimTo establish whether POC testing for influenza viruses or RSV is based on a valid respiratory symptom indication, whether changes in patient management based on a positive result are safe and whether syndromic POC testing may benefit patients with influenza or RSV.MethodsSamples from 180 children (< 18 years) and 375 adults tested using POCT between February and July 2018 were retested for 26 respiratory pathogens. Diagnosis, indication for POC testing, hospitalisation time, antimicrobial therapy and readmission or death within one month of testing were obtained from patient records.ResultsA valid indication for POC testing was established in 168 (93.3%) of children and 334 (89.1%) of adults. A positive POCT result significantly reduced antibiotic prescription and median hospitalisation time by 44.3 hours for adults and 14.2 hours for children, and significantly increased antiviral treatment in adults. Risk of readmission or death was not significantly altered by a positive result. Testing for 26 respiratory pathogens established that risk of coinfection is lower with increasing age and that POCT for adults should be restricted to the influenza and RSV season.ConclusionPositive POCT resulted in changed patient management for both children and adults, and was deemed safe. POCT for additional pathogens may be beneficial in children below 5 years of age and outside the influenza and RSV season.

An in-well direct lysis method for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 by real time RT-PCR in eSwab specimens.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic real time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) is usually done using nucleic acid (NA) purified from the sample. In the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic reagents and utensils for NA purification has been in short supply. This has generated interest in methods that eliminate the need for NA purification. OBJECTIVES: To investigate if addition of detergent to rRT-PCR master mix (MM) enabled in-well direct lysis and detection of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical eSwab specimens. STUDY DESIGN: IGEPAL-CA-630 (IGEPAL) was added to SARS-CoV-2 MM to 0.3 % final concentration and crude sample was added directly to the PCR well containing MM. Cycle of positivity (Cp) and categorical agreement was compared in samples tested in standard rRT-PCR after NA purification and in in-well lysis, direct rRT-PCR. RESULTS: In-well lysis direct rRT-PCR detected SARS-CoV-2 in 27/30 previously SARS-CoV-2+ samples with an average bias of 3.26 cycles (95 %CI: 0.08-6.43 cycles). All 30 previously test negative samples remained negative when tested in in-well lysis, direct PCR. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementation of detergent to MM was shown to be useful for the detection of SARS CoV-2 in eSwab specimens (COPAN) by direct rRT-PCR without prior NA purification.

Multicenter Evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel for Detection of Viruses and Bacteria in Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens.

The QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel (QIAstat-Dx RP) is a multiplex in vitro diagnostic test for the qualitative detection of 20 pathogens directly from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens. The assay is performed using a simple sample-to-answer platform with results available in approximately 69 min. The pathogens identified are adenovirus, coronavirus 229E, coronavirus HKU1, coronavirus NL63, coronavirus OC43, human metapneumovirus A and B, influenza A, influenza A H1, influenza A H3, influenza A H1N1/2009, influenza B, parainfluenza virus 1, parainfluenza virus 2, parainfluenza virus 3, parainfluenza virus 4, rhinovirus/enterovirus, respiratory syncytial virus A and B, Bordetella pertussis, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae This multicenter evaluation provides data obtained from 1,994 prospectively collected and 310 retrospectively collected (archived) NPS specimens with performance compared to that of the BioFire FilmArray Respiratory Panel, version 1.7. The overall percent agreement between QIAstat-Dx RP and the comparator testing was 99.5%. In the prospective cohort, the QIAstat-Dx RP demonstrated a positive percent agreement of 94.0% or greater for the detection of all but four analytes: coronaviruses 229E, NL63, and OC43 and rhinovirus/enterovirus. The test also demonstrated a negative percent agreement of ≥97.9% for all analytes. The QIAstat-Dx RP is a robust and accurate assay for rapid, comprehensive testing for respiratory pathogens.