High-speed large-scale automated isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from clinical samples using miniaturized co-culture coupled to high-content screening

Test accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests and reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction against virus isolation in cell culture for assessing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity: Systematic review and meta-analysis

We aimed to assess the performance of Ag-RDT and RT-qPCR with regard to detecting infectious SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures, as their diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) compared to virus isolation remains largely unknown. We searched three databases up to 15 December 2021 for DTA studies. The bivariate model was used to synthesise the estimates. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2/C. Twenty studies (2605 respiratory samples) using cell culture and at least one molecular test were identified. All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Three comparative DTA studies reported results on Ag-RDT and RT-qPCR against cell culture. Two studies evaluated RT-qPCR against cell culture only. Fifteen studies evaluated Ag-RDT against cell culture as reference standard in RT-qPCR-positive samples. For Ag-RDT, summary sensitivity was 93% (95% CI 78; 98%) and specificity 87% (95% CI 70; 95%). For RT-qPCR, summary sensitivity (continuity-corrected) was 98% (95% CI 95; 99%) and specificity 45% (95% CI 28; 63%). In studies relying on RT-qPCR-positive subsamples (n = 15), the summary sensitivity of Ag-RDT was 93% (95% CI 92; 93%) and specificity 63% (95% CI 63; 63%). Ag-RDT show moderately high sensitivity, detecting most but not all samples demonstrated to be infectious based on virus isolation. Although RT-qPCR exhibits high sensitivity across studies, its low specificity to indicate infectivity raises the question of its general superiority in all clinical settings. Study findings should be interpreted with caution due to the risk of bias, heterogeneity and the imperfect reference standard for infectivity.

Generation of quality-controlled SARS-CoV-2 variant stocks

One of the main challenges in the fight against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) stems from the ongoing evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) into multiple variants. To address this hurdle, research groups around the world have independently developed protocols to isolate these variants from clinical samples. These isolates are then used in translational and basic research-for example, in vaccine development, drug screening or characterizing SARS-CoV-2 biology and pathogenesis. However, over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have learned that the introduction of artefacts during both in vitro isolation and subsequent propagation to virus stocks can lessen the validity and reproducibility of data. We propose a rigorous pipeline for the generation of high-quality SARS-CoV-2 variant clonal isolates that minimizes the acquisition of mutations and introduces stringent controls to detect them. Overall, the process includes eight stages: (i) cell maintenance, (ii) isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from clinical specimens, (iii) determination of infectious virus titers by plaque assay, (iv) clonal isolation by plaque purification, (v) whole-virus-genome deep-sequencing, (vi and vii) amplification of selected virus clones to master and working stocks and (viii) sucrose purification. This comprehensive protocol will enable researchers to generate reliable SARS-CoV-2 variant inoculates for in vitro and in vivo experimentation and will facilitate comparisons and collaborative work. Quality-controlled working stocks for most applications can be generated from acquired biorepository virus within 1 month. An additional 5-8 d are required when virus is isolated from clinical swab material, and another 6-7 d is needed for sucrose-purifying the stocks.

Assessing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infectivity by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The cornerstone of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection is reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) of viral RNA. As a surrogate assay SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection does not necessarily imply infectivity. Only virus isolation in permissive cell culture systems can indicate infectivity. Here, we review the evidence on RT-PCR performance in detecting infectious SARS-CoV-2. We searched for any studies that used RT-PCR and cell culture to determine infectious SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples. We assessed (i) diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR compared to cell culture as reference test, (ii) performed meta-analysis of positive predictive values (PPV) and (iii) determined the virus isolation probabilities depending on cycle threshold (Ct) or log10 genome copies/ml using logistic regression. We included 55 studies. There is substantial statistical and clinical heterogeneity. Seven studies were included for diagnostic accuracy. Sensitivity ranged from 90% to 99% and specificity from 29% to 92%. In meta-analysis, the PPVs varied across subgroups with different sampling times after symptom onset, with 1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0%-7%) in sampling beyond 10 days and 27% (CI, 19%-36%) to 46% (CI, 33%-60%) in subgroups that also included earlier samples. Estimates of virus isolation probability varied between 6% (CI, 0%-100%) and 50% (CI, 0%-100%) at a Ct value of 30 and between 0% (CI, 0%-22%) and 63% (CI, 0%-100%) at 5 log10 genome copies/ml. Evidence on RT-PCR performance in detecting infectious SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples was limited. Major limitations were heterogeneity and poor reporting. RT-PCR and cell culture protocols need further standardisation.

COVID-19 Management at IHU Méditerranée Infection: A One-Year Experience

BACKGROUND

The Hospital-University Institute (IHU) Méditerranée Infection features a 27,000 square meter building hosting 700 employees and 75 hospitalized patients in the center of Marseille, France.

METHOD

Previous preparedness in contagious disease management allowed the IHU to manage the COVID-19 outbreak by continuing adaptation for optimal diagnosis, care and outcome. We report here the output of this management.

RESULTS

From 5 March 2020, and 26 April 2021, 608,313 PCR tests were provided for 424,919 patients and 44,089 returned positive. A total of 23,390 patients with COVID-19 were followed at IHU with an overall case fatality ratio of 1.7%. Of them 20,270 were followed as outpatients with an overall CFR of 0.17%. We performed 24,807 EKG, 5759 low dose CT Scanner, and 18,344 serology. Of the 7643 nasopharyngeal samples inoculated in cell cultures 3317 (43.3%) yielded SARS-Cov-2 isolates. Finally, 7370 SARS-Cov-2 genomes were analyzed, allowing description of the first genetic variants and their implication in the epidemiologic curves. Continuous clinical care quality evaluation provided the opportunity for 155 publications allowing a better understanding of the disease and improvement of care and 132 videos posted on the IHU Facebook network, totaling 60 million views and 390,000 followers, and dealing with COVID-19, outbreaks, epistemology, and ethics in medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

During this epidemic, IHU Méditerranée Infection played the role for which it has been created; useful clinical research to guarantee a high-quality diagnostic and care for patient and a recognized expertise.

Commercially available rapid diagnostic tests for the detection of high priority pathogens: status and challenges

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has shown the importance of having analytical devices that allow a simple, fast, and robust detection of pathogens which cause epidemics and pandemics. The information these devices can collect is crucial for health authorities to make effective decisions to contain the disease's advance. The World Health Organization published a list of primary pathogens that have raised concern as potential causes of future pandemics. Unfortunately, there are no rapid diagnostic tests commercially available and approved by the regulatory bodies to detect most of the pathogens listed by the WHO. This report describes these pathogens, the available detection methods, and highlights areas where more attention is needed to produce rapid diagnostic tests for future pandemic surveillance.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

BACKGROUND

Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID-19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS-2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre-prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays. We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (50%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (45%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 based on a single RT-PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID-19. Antigen tests Forty-eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%). At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self-testing. Rapid molecular assays Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer's instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID-19 diagnostics ('acceptable' sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT-PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice. Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self-testing) are required.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify or rule out current infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current SARS-CoV-2 infection have the potential to allow earlier detection and isolation of confirmed cases compared to laboratory-based diagnostic methods, with the aim of reducing household and community transmission.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection.

SEARCH METHODS

On 25 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of people with suspected current SARS-CoV-2 infection, known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results available within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established clinical diagnostic criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies and resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. One review author independently extracted study characteristics, which were checked by a second review author. Two review authors independently extracted 2x2 contingency table data and assessed risk of bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We present sensitivity and specificity, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for each test using paired forest plots. We pooled data using the bivariate hierarchical model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests, with simplifications when few studies were available. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 publications reporting on a total of 18 study cohorts with 3198 unique samples, of which 1775 had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ten studies took place in North America, two in South America, four in Europe, one in China and one was conducted internationally. We identified data for eight commercial tests (four antigen and four molecular) and one in-house antigen test. Five of the studies included were only available as preprints. We did not find any studies at low risk of bias for all quality domains and had concerns about applicability of results across all studies. We judged patient selection to be at high risk of bias in 50% of the studies because of deliberate over-sampling of samples with confirmed COVID-19 infection and unclear in seven out of 18 studies because of poor reporting. Sixteen (89%) studies used only a single, negative RT-PCR to confirm the absence of COVID-19 infection, risking missing infection. There was a lack of information on blinding of index test (n = 11), and around participant exclusions from analyses (n = 10). We did not observe differences in methodological quality between antigen and molecular test evaluations. Antigen tests Sensitivity varied considerably across studies (from 0% to 94%): the average sensitivity was 56.2% (95% CI 29.5 to 79.8%) and average specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 98.1% to 99.9%; based on 8 evaluations in 5 studies on 943 samples). Data for individual antigen tests were limited with no more than two studies for any test. Rapid molecular assays Sensitivity showed less variation compared to antigen tests (from 68% to 100%), average sensitivity was 95.2% (95% CI 86.7% to 98.3%) and specificity 98.9% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.5%) based on 13 evaluations in 11 studies of on 2255 samples. Predicted values based on a hypothetical cohort of 1000 people with suspected COVID-19 infection (with a prevalence of 10%) result in 105 positive test results including 10 false positives (positive predictive value 90%), and 895 negative results including 5 false negatives (negative predictive value 99%). Individual tests We calculated pooled results of individual tests for ID NOW (Abbott Laboratories) (5 evaluations) and Xpert Xpress (Cepheid Inc) (6 evaluations). Summary sensitivity for the Xpert Xpress assay (99.4%, 95% CI 98.0% to 99.8%) was 22.6 (95% CI 18.8 to 26.3) percentage points higher than that of ID NOW (76.8%, (95% CI 72.9% to 80.3%), whilst the specificity of Xpert Xpress (96.8%, 95% CI 90.6% to 99.0%) was marginally lower than ID NOW (99.6%, 95% CI 98.4% to 99.9%; a difference of -2.8% (95% CI -6.4 to 0.8)) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies early-stage evaluations of point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection, largely based on remnant laboratory samples. The findings currently have limited applicability, as we are uncertain whether tests will perform in the same way in clinical practice, and according to symptoms of COVID-19, duration of symptoms, or in asymptomatic people. Rapid tests have the potential to be used to inform triage of RT-PCR use, allowing earlier detection of those testing positive, but the evidence currently is not strong enough to determine how useful they are in clinical practice. Prospective and comparative evaluations of rapid tests for COVID-19 infection in clinically relevant settings are urgently needed. Studies should recruit consecutive series of eligible participants, including both those presenting for testing due to symptoms and asymptomatic people who may have come into contact with confirmed cases. Studies should clearly describe symptomatic status and document time from symptom onset or time since exposure. Point-of-care tests must be conducted on samples according to manufacturer instructions for use and be conducted at the point of care. Any future research study report should conform to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guideline.