Performance evaluation of the Panther Fusion® respiratory tract panel

Analytical validation of quantitative SARS-CoV-2 subgenomic and viral load laboratory developed tests conducted on the Panther Fusion® (Hologic) with preliminary application to clinical samples

OBJECTIVE

Validate the performance characteristics of two analyte specific, laboratory developed tests (LDTs) for the quantification of SARS-CoV-2 subgenomic RNA (sgRNA) and viral load on the Hologic Panther Fusion® using the Open Access functionality.

METHODS

Custom-designed primers/probe sets targeting the SARS-CoV-2 Envelope gene (E) and subgenomic E were optimized. A 20-day performance validation following laboratory developed test requirements was conducted to assess assay precision, accuracy, analytical sensitivity/specificity, lower limit of detection and reportable range.

RESULTS

Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 sgRNA (LDT-Quant sgRNA) assay, which measures intermediates of replication, and viral load (LDT-Quant VLCoV) assay demonstrated acceptable performance. Both assays were linear with an R2 and slope equal to 0.99 and 1.00, respectively. Assay precision was evaluated between 4-6 Log10 with a maximum CV of 2.6% and 2.5% for LDT-Quant sgRNA and LDT-Quant VLCoV respectively. Using negative or positive SARS-CoV-2 human nasopharyngeal swab samples, both assays were accurate (kappa coefficient of 1.00 and 0.92). Common respiratory flora and other viral pathogens were not detected and did not interfere with the detection or quantification by either assay. Based on 95% detection, the assay LLODs were 729 and 1206 Copies/mL for the sgRNA and VL load LDTs, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The LDT-Quant sgRNA and LDT-Quant VLCoV demonstrated good analytical performance. These assays could be further investigated as alternative monitoring assays for viral replication; and thus, medical management in clinical settings which could inform isolation/quarantine requirements.

Agnostic Sequencing for Detection of Viral Pathogens

The advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies has expanded our ability to detect and analyze microbial genomes and has yielded novel molecular approaches for infectious disease diagnostics. While several targeted multiplex PCR and NGS-based assays have been widely used in public health settings in recent years, these targeted approaches are limited in that they still rely on a priori knowledge of a pathogen's genome, and an untargeted or unknown pathogen will not be detected. Recent public health crises have emphasized the need to prepare for a wide and rapid deployment of an agnostic diagnostic assay at the start of an outbreak to ensure an effective response to emerging viral pathogens. Metagenomic techniques can nonspecifically sequence all detectable nucleic acids in a sample and therefore do not rely on prior knowledge of a pathogen's genome. While this technology has been reviewed for bacterial diagnostics and adopted in research settings for the detection and characterization of viruses, viral metagenomics has yet to be widely deployed as a diagnostic tool in clinical laboratories. In this review, we highlight recent improvements to the performance of metagenomic viral sequencing, the current applications of metagenomic sequencing in clinical laboratories, as well as the challenges that impede the widespread adoption of this technology.

Summarizing Study Characteristics and Diagnostic Performance of Commercially Available Tests for Respiratory Syncytial Virus: A Scoping Literature Review in the COVID-19 Era

BACKGROUND

Nonpharmaceutical interventions to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 also decreased the spread of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza. Viral diagnostic testing in patients with respiratory tract infections (RTI) is a necessary tool for patient management; therefore, sensitive and specific tests are required. This scoping literature review aimed to summarize the study characteristics of commercially available sample-to-answer RSV tests.

CONTENT

PubMed and Embase were queried for studies reporting on the diagnostic performance of tests for RSV in patients with RTI (published January 2005-January 2021). Information on study design, patient and setting characteristics, and published diagnostic performance of RSV tests were extracted from 77 studies that met predefined inclusion criteria. A literature gap was identified for studies of RSV tests conducted in adult-only populations (5.3% of total subrecords) and in outpatient (7.5%) or household (0.8%) settings. Overall, RSV tests with analytical time >30 min had higher published sensitivity (62.5%-100%) vs RSV tests with analytical time ≤30 min (25.7%-100%); this sensitivity range could be partially attributed to the different modalities (antigen vs molecular) used. Molecular-based rapid RSV tests had higher published sensitivity (66.7%-100%) and specificity (94.3%-100%) than antigen-based RSV tests (sensitivity: 25.7%-100%; specificity:80.3%-100%).

SUMMARY

This scoping review reveals a paucity of literature on studies of RSV tests in specific populations and settings, highlighting the need for further assessments. Considering the implications of these results in the current pandemic landscape, the authors preliminarily suggest adopting molecular-based RSV tests for first-line use in these settings.

Standardization of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques by Calibration and Quantification to the First WHO International Standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA

Clinical decision-making regarding isolation of SARS-CoV-2 patients is usually based on semiquantitative cycle-threshold (Ct) values without standardization. However, not all molecular assays produce Ct values, and there is ongoing discussion about whether Ct values can be safely used for decision-making. In this study, we standardized two molecular assays which use different nucleic acid amplification techniques (NAAT): the Hologic Aptima SARS-CoV-2/Flu (TMA) and Roche Cobas 6800 SARS-CoV-2 assays. We calibrated these assays against the first WHO international standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by using linear regression of log10 dilution series. These calibration curves were used to calculate viral loads for clinical samples. Clinical performance was assessed retrospectively using samples collected between January 2020 and November 2021, including known positives of the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus, the VOCs (alpha, beta, gamma, delta, and omicron) and quality control panels. Linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis showed good correlations for SARS-CoV-2 between Panther TMA and Cobas 6800 when standardized viral loads were used. These standardized quantitative results can benefit clinical decision-making and standardization of infection control guidelines.

Clinical performance and sample freeze-thaw stability of the cobas®6800 SARS-CoV-2 assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs and lower respiratory specimens

•

Naso/oropharygeal swabs and deep respiratory samples, but not feces, show good clinical performance in Cobas®6800 SARS-CoV-2 assay.

•

No significant difference was found after one freeze-thaw cycler with or without lysis buffer.

•

Time-to-result is lower using Cobas®6800 SARS-CoV-2 assay compared to LDA.

Introduction

Studies describing the performance characteristics of the cobas®6800 system for SARS-CoV-2 detection in deep respiratory specimens and freeze-thaw stability are limited. The current study compares the clinical performance of the automated SARS-CoV-2 assay on the cobas®6800 system to a lab-developed assay (LDA) and the cobas impact of freeze-thawing combined with lysis buffer.

Methods

Both retrospective and prospectively selected deep respiratory samples and oro- and nasopharyngeal samples in either E-swab® or GLY- were tested using the SARS-CoV-2 assay on the cobas®6800 System and compared to a lab developed assay. Additonally, SARS-CoV-2 RNA stability was assessed after one freeze-thaw cycle with or without lysis buffer.

Results

In total, 221 (58.3 %) oro- and nasopharyngeal swabs, 131 (34.6 %) deep respiratory specimens, and n = 25 (6.6 %) swabs of unknown origin were included to study clinical performance. Only 4 samples gave discrepant results, all being positive in the LDA and not the cobas®6800 system. For stability testing, 66 samples without and 110 with lysis buffer were included. No clinically significant difference was found in test results after one freeze-thaw cycle and addition of lysis buffer.

Conclusion

Based on our findings, the cobas®6800 SARS-CoV-2 RNA assay yielded similar results as the LDA in oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs and deep respiratory specimens. Moreover, the cobas®6800 SARS-CoV-2 RNA assay yielded similar results before and after a freeze-thaw cycle, with better preservation of low viral loads in lysis buffer.

Analytical Performances of the Panther Fusion System for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses in the French National Reference Centre of Lyon, France

Respiratory infection are mainly caused by viral pathogens. During the 2017-2018 epidemic season, Panther Fusion^® Respiratory kits (Influenza virus A&B (FluA&B), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), adenovirus (ADV), metapneumovirus (MPV), rhinovirus (RV), parainfluenzae virus (PIV), were compared to the Respiratory MultiWells System r-gene. Respiratory clinical specimens were tested retrospectively (n = 268) and prospectively (n = 463). Analytical performances were determined (sensitivity -Sep-, specificity -Spe- and κ) considering concordances of ≥2 molecular testing specific to each viral target (discrepant results were verified at the National Reference Centres for Enteroviruses or Respiratory viruses, Lyon, France). After retrospective (and prospective) testing, Sep, Spe, and κ were 100% (97.7%), 100% (99%) and 100% (94%) for FluA: 100% (95.5%), 100% (99.3%) and 100% (94%) for FluB, and 100% (88.5%), 100% (98.7%) and 100% (89%) for RSV; 82.1% (41.7%), 100% (99.5%) and 86% (54%) for ADV; 94.7% (73.7%), 96.1% (98.0%) and 91% (65%) for MPV; 96.1% (94.6%), 90.2% (98.5%) and 86% (91%) for HRV; and 90% (72.7%), 100% (99.3%) and 91% (72%), respectively, for PIV. Analytical performances were above 85% for all viruses except for ADV, MPV and PIV, confirming the analytical performance of the Panther Fusion system, a high throughput system with reduced turn-around-time, when compared to non-automated systems.