Clinical Evaluation of BD Veritor SARS-CoV-2 Point-of-Care Test Performance Compared to PCR-Based Testing and versus the Sofia 2 SARS Antigen Point-of-Care Test.

The clinical performance of the BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (Veritor), a chromatographic immunoassay used for SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care testing, was evaluated using nasal specimens from individuals with COVID-19 symptoms. Two studies were completed to determine clinical performance. In the first study, nasal specimens and either nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal specimens from 251 participants with COVID-19 symptoms (≤7 days from symptom onset [DSO], ≥18 years of age) were utilized to compare Veritor with the Lyra SARS-CoV-2 PCR assay (Lyra). In the second study, nasal specimens from 361 participants with COVID-19 symptoms (≤5 DSO, ≥18 years of age) were utilized to compare performance of Veritor to that of the Sofia 2 SARS Antigen FIA test (Sofia 2). The positive, negative, and overall percent agreement (PPA, NPA, and OPA, respectively) were the primary outcomes. In study 1, the PPA for Veritor, compared to Lyra, ranged from 81.8 to 87.5% across the 0 to 1 and 0 to 6 DSO ranges. In study 2, Veritor had PPA, NPA, and OPA values of 97.4, 98.1, and 98.1%, respectively, with Sofia 2. Discordant analysis showed one Lyra positive missed by Veritor and five Lyra positives missed by Sofia 2; one Veritor positive result was negative by Lyra. Veritor met FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) acceptance criteria for SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing for the 0 to 5 and 0 to 6 DSO ranges (PPA values of 83.9% and 82.4%, respectively). Veritor and Sofia 2 showed a high degree of agreement for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The Veritor test allows for more rapid COVID-19 testing utilizing easy-to-collect nasal swabs but demonstrated <100% PPA compared to PCR.

Molecular point-of-care testing for influenza A/B and respiratory syncytial virus: comparison of workflow parameters for the ID Now and cobas Liat systems.

AIMS: Point-of-care (POC) tests for influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) offer the potential to improve patient management and antimicrobial stewardship. Studies have focused on performance; however, no workflow assessments have been published comparing POC molecular tests. This study compared the Liat and ID Now systems workflow, to assist end-users in selecting an influenza and/or RSV POC test. METHODS: Staffing, walk-away and turnaround time (TAT) of the Liat and ID Now systems were determined using 40 nasopharyngeal samples, positive for influenza or RSV. The ID Now system requires separate tests for influenza and RSV, so parallel (two instruments) and sequential (one instrument) workflows were evaluated. RESULTS: The ID Now ranged 4.1-6.2 min for staffing, 1.9-10.9 min for walk-away and 6.4-15.8 min for TAT per result. The Liat ranged 1.1-1.8 min for staffing, 20.0-20.5 min for walk-away and 21.3-22.0 min for TAT. Mean walk-away time comprised 38.0% (influenza positive) and 68.1% (influenza negative) of TAT for ID Now and 93.7% (influenza/RSV) for Liat. The ID Now parallel workflow resulted in medians of 5.9 min for staffing, 9.7 min for walk-away and 15.6 min for TAT. Assuming prevalence of 20% influenza and 20% RSV, the ID Now sequential workflow resulted in medians of 9.4 min for staffing, 17.4 min for walk-away, and 27.1 min for TAT. CONCLUSIONS: The ID Now and Liat systems offer different workflow characteristics. Key considerations for implementation include value of both influenza and RSV results, clinical setting, staffing capacity, and instrument(s) placement.

Ultrasensitive Detection of Clostridioides difficile Toxins in Stool by Use of Single-Molecule Counting Technology: Comparison with Detection of Free Toxin by Cell Culture Cytotoxicity Neutralization Assay.

Laboratory tests for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) rely on the detection of free toxin or molecular detection of toxin genes. The Singulex Clarity C. diff toxins A/B assay is a rapid, automated, and ultrasensitive assay that detects C. difficile toxins A and B in stool. We compared CDI assays across two prospective multicenter studies to set a cutoff for the Clarity assay and to independently validate the performance compared with that of a cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCCNA). The cutoff was set by two sites testing fresh samples from 897 subjects with suspected CDI and then validated at four sites testing fresh samples from 1,005 subjects with suspected CDI. CCCNA testing was performed at a centralized laboratory. Samples with discrepant results between the Clarity assay and CCCNA were retested with CCCNA when the Clarity result agreed with that of at least one comparator method; toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIA), glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) detection, and PCR were performed on all samples. The cutoff for the Clarity assay was set at 12.0 pg/ml. Compared to results with CCCNA, the Clarity assay initially had 85.2% positive agreement and 92.4% negative agreement. However, when samples with discrepant results between the Clarity assay and CCCNA in the validation study were retested by CCCNA, 13/17 (76.5%) Clarity-negative but CCCNA-positive samples (Clarity+/CCCNA-) became CCCNA-, and 5/26 (19.2%) Clarity+/CCCNA- samples became CCCNA+, resulting in a 96.3% positive agreement and 93.0% negative agreement between Clarity and CCCNA results. The toxin EIA had 59.8% positive agreement with CCCNA. The Clarity assay was the most sensitive free-toxin immunoassay, capable of providing CDI diagnosis in a single-step solution. A different CCCNA result was reported for 42% of retested samples, increasing the positive agreement between Clarity and CCCNA from 85.2% to 96.3% and indicating the challenges of comparing free-toxin results to CCCNA results as a reference standard.

Laboratory comparison between cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay and ultrasensitive single molecule counting technology for detection of Clostridioides difficile toxins A and B, PCR, enzyme immunoassays, and multistep algorithms.

Diagnostic tests for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) lack either specificity (nucleic acid amplification tests) or sensitivity (enzyme immunoassays; EIAs). The performance of the Singulex Clarity® C. diff toxins A/B assay was compared to cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay. Testing was also performed using an EIA for glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and C. difficile toxins A and B (C. Diff Quik Chek Complete®), polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (BD MAX™ Cdiff Assay), and 2 multistep algorithms: algorithm 1 (discordant GDH/toxin results arbitrated by PCR) and algorithm 2 (PCR-positive samples tested with toxin EIA). The Clarity assay and PCR both had 97% sensitivity, while specificity was 100% for Clarity and 79% for PCR. Algorithm 1 yielded 41% discordant results, and both toxin EIA and algorithm 2 had 58% sensitivity. Median toxin concentrations, as measured by the Clarity C. difficile toxin assay, were 3590, 11.5, 0.4, and 0 pg/mL for GDH+/toxin+, GDH+/toxin-/PCR+, GDH+/toxin-/PCR-, and GDH-/toxin- samples, respectively (P < 0.001). The Clarity assay may offer a single-test solution for CDI.

Concordance of PD-L1 Expression Detection in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Tissue Biopsy Specimens Between OncoTect iO Lung Assay and Immunohistochemistry (IHC).

OBJECTIVES: We report on the validity of a fully quantitative technology to determine tumor cells' PD-L1 expression compared with a standard immunohistochemical (IHC) assay in non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: Nineteen fresh tissue specimens were processed into single-cell suspensions using the IncellPREP Kit. Cells were treated with the OncoTect iO Lung Assay, which quantitatively assessed tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), DNA content, and PD-L1 expression on diploid and aneuploid tumor populations. RESULTS: Comparison of the OncoTect iO Lung Assay with IHC revealed a concordance of 95% overall (negative percent agreement, 97%; positive percent agreement, 89%). PD-L1 expression varied depending on the DNA content. The number of TILs and antigen-presenting cells (APCs) was significantly decreased in tumor compared with normal lung tissue. CONCLUSIONS: The nonsubjective OncoTect iO Lung Assay has been shown to be at least as accurate and sensitive as IHC for the detection of PD-L1 expression while providing additional information to guide treatment.

Multicenter Evaluation of the Bruker MALDI Biotyper CA System for the Identification of Clinically Important Bacteria and Yeasts.

OBJECTIVES: A report on the multicenter evaluation of the Bruker MALDI Biotyper CA System (MBT-CA; Bruker Daltonics, Billerica, MA) for the identification of clinically important bacteria and yeasts. METHODS: In total, 4,399 isolates of medically important bacteria and yeasts were assessed in the MBT-CA. These included 2,262 aerobic gram-positive (AGP) bacteria, 792 aerobic gram-negative (AGN) bacteria 530 anaerobic (AnA) bacteria, and 815 yeasts (YSTs). Three processing methods were assesed. RESULTS: Overall, 98.4% (4,329/4,399) of all bacterial and yeast isolates were correctly identified to the genus and species/species complex level, and 95.7% of isolates were identified with a high degree of confidence. The percentage correctly identified and the percentage identified correctly with a high level of confidence, respectively, were as follows: AGP bacteria (98.6%/96.5%), AGN bacteria (98.5%/96.8%), AnA bacteria (98.5%/97.4%), and YSTs (97.8%/87.6%). The extended direct transfer method was only minimally superior to the direct transfer method for bacteria (89.9% vs 86.8%, respectively) but significantly superior for yeast isolates (74.0% vs 48.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The Bruker MALDI Biotyper CA System accurately identifies most clinically important bacteria and yeasts and has optional processing methods to improve isolate characterization.

Multicenter Evaluation of the Bruker MALDI Biotyper CA System for the Identification of Clinical Aerobic Gram-Negative Bacterial Isolates.

The prompt and accurate identification of bacterial pathogens is fundamental to patient health and outcome. Recent advances in matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) have revolutionized bacterial identification in the clinical laboratory, but uniform incorporation of this technology in the U.S. market has been delayed by a lack of FDA-cleared systems. In this study, we conducted a multicenter evaluation of the MALDI Biotyper CA (MBT-CA) System (Bruker Daltonics Inc, Billerica, MA) for the identification of aerobic gram-negative bacteria as part of a 510(k) submission to the FDA. A total of 2,263 aerobic gram negative bacterial isolates were tested representing 23 genera and 61 species. Isolates were collected from various clinical sources and results obtained from the MBT-CA System were compared to DNA sequencing and/or biochemical testing. Isolates that failed to report as a "high confidence species ID" [log(score) ≥2.00] were re-tested using an extraction method. The MBT-CA System identified 96.8% and 3.1% of isolates with either a "high confidence" or a "low confidence" [log(score) value between 1.70 and <2.00] species ID, respectively. Two isolates did not produce acceptable confidence scores after extraction. The MBT-CA System correctly identified 99.8% (2,258/2,263) to genus and 98.2% (2,222/2,263) to species level. These data demonstrate that the MBT-CA System provides accurate results for the identification of aerobic gram-negative bacteria.