Performance characteristics of the Abbott Alinity m SARS-CoV-2 assay

A Targeted LC-MRM3 Proteomic Approach for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Nasopharyngeal Swabs

Since its first appearance, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 quickly spread around the world and the lack of adequate PCR testing capacities, especially during the early pandemic, led the scientific community to explore new approaches such as mass spectrometry (MS). We developed a proteomics workflow to target several tryptic peptides of the nucleocapsid protein. A highly selective multiple reaction monitoring-cubed (MRM3) strategy provided a sensitivity increase in comparison to conventional MRM acquisition. Our MRM3 approach was first tested on an Amsterdam public health cohort (alpha-variant, 760 participants) detecting viral nucleocapsid protein peptides from nasopharyngeal swabs samples presenting a cycle threshold value down to 35 with sensitivity and specificity of 94.2% and 100.0%, without immunopurification. A second iteration of the MS-diagnostic test, able to analyze more than 400 samples per day, was clinically validated on a Leiden-Rijswijk public health cohort (delta-variant, 2536 participants) achieving 99.9% specificity and 93.1% sensitivity for patients with cycle threshold values up to 35. In this manuscript, we also developed and brought the first proof of the concept of viral variant monitoring in a complex matrix using targeted MS.

Clinical comparison of three SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests for routine diagnostic testing

Background

Cycle threshold (Ct) values from SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests have been used to estimate viral load for treatment decisions. Additionally, there is a need for high-throughput testing, consolidating a variety of assays on one random-access analyzer.

Objectives

In this study, the clinical performance of the Alinity m SARS-CoV-2, RealTime SARS-CoV-2, and GeneXpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assays was assessed.

Methods

Alinity precision and detection rates were evaluated using a dilution series of the Alinity m SARS-CoV-2 positive control. In a retrospective study, 7 remnant external quality assessment (EQA) specimens and 200 remnant nasopharyngeal swab specimens (100 positive and 100 negative) were tested in the three assays.

Results

Alinity had 100 % detection rate at 50 copies/mL and high reproducibility (Ct value coefficient of variation ≤3.1 %). All three assays correctly detected positive and negative EQA samples with comparable Ct values (max difference 2.38) and high linearity. In patient samples, positive percent agreement was 95 % (95 % CI 89-98 %) and negative percent agreement was 100 % (95 % CI 96-100 %) for Alinity, compared to the other two assays. Four specimens detected on Alinity m but not RealTime or Xpert had Ct values above 40. Assay results were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.94). Ct values (after addition of 10 unread cycles to the reported Ct of RealTime) were comparable across the three assays.

Conclusions

Alinity m had high precision and accuracy and Ct values comparable to those of the RealTime and Xpert assays. The assays could be used interchangeably, with no need for adjustment of patient management decisions based on Ct values from each assay.

Implementation and clinical evaluation of an Mpox virus laboratory-developed test on a fully automated random-access platform

While Mpox virus (MPXV) diagnostics were performed in specialized laboratories only, the global emergence of Mpox cases in 2022 revealed the need for a more readily available diagnostic. Automated random-access platforms with fast nucleic acid extraction and PCR have become established in many laboratories, providing faster and more accessible testing. In this study, we adapted a previously published generic MPXV-PCR as a lab-developed test (LDT) on a NeuMoDx Molecular System and isolated MPXV clones from patient materials. To reduce the handling of infectious material, we evaluated a viral lysis buffer (VLB) for sample pretreatment. We further compared the MPXV-LDT-PCR to conventional real-time PCR, determined its sensitivity and specificity using positive swabs, and assessed its performance using external quality assessment samples. Pretreatment of samples with 50% VLB reduced MPXV infectivity by approximately 200-fold while maintaining PCR sensitivity. The assay demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 100% with no cross-reactivity in the samples tested and performed with a limit of detection of 262 GE/mL. In summary, the assay had a turnaround time of fewer than 2 h and can easily be transferred to other automated PCR platforms, providing a basis for developing rapid assays for upcoming pandemics.

COVID-19 Antigen Results Correlate with the Quantity of Replication-Competent SARS-CoV-2 in a Cross-Sectional Study of Ambulatory Adults during the Delta Wave

Appropriate interpretation of various diagnostic tests for COVID-19 is critical, yet the association among rapid antigen tests, reverse transcription (RT)-PCR, and viral culture has not been fully defined. To determine whether rapid antigen testing correlates with the presence and quantity of replication-competent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in ambulatory adults, 626 adult participants were enrolled in a cross-sectional diagnostic study. Each participant had two anterior nasal swabs obtained for rapid antigen and RT-PCR testing and SARS-CoV-2 viral culture. The primary outcomes were the presence and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 growth in VeroE6-ACE2-TMPRSS2 cells in asymptomatic and symptomatic ambulatory adults. In this cross-sectional study of 626 adult outpatients, the sensitivity of a single positive antigen test to identify replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 was 63.6% in asymptomatic and 91.0% in symptomatic participants. Viral culture titers were the highest at the onset of symptoms and rapidly declined by 7 days after symptom onset. The positive agreement of the rapid antigen test with RT-PCR at a cycle threshold CT less than 30 was 66.7% in asymptomatic and 90.7% in symptomatic participants. Among symptomatic participants a with a CT less than 30, a single antigen test had a positive agreement of 90.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.8% to 94.8%). There was 100% negative agreement as all 425 RT-PCR-negative participants had a negative antigen test. A positive antigen test in symptomatic adults with COVID-19 has a strong correlation with replication-competent SARS-CoV-2. Rapid antigen test results may be a suitable proxy for infectiousness. IMPORTANCE Do rapid antigen test results correlate with replication-competent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (i.e., infectious) virus? In this cross-sectional diagnostic study of 626 adults, the sensitivity of the antigen test to identify replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 was 63.6% in asymptomatic and 91.0% in symptomatic participants. Viral culture titers were the highest at the onset of symptoms and rapidly declined by 7 days after symptom onset. The positive agreement of the rapid antigen test with reverse transcription (RT)-PCR at a CT of less than 30 was 66.7% in asymptomatic participants and 90.7% in symptomatic participants. A positive antigen test may be an appropriate surrogate for identifying replication-competent virus in symptomatic individuals with COVID-19.

COVID or no COVID: Interpreting inconclusive SARS-CoV-2 qPCR results in different populations and platforms

Introduction

High cycle threshold values (Ct) value) results for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) may be true infections or false-positive results. Misinterpretation of results has negative consequences. Goal of this study was to evaluate quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) results with high Ct-values, to reach a point where a correct interpretation can be given.

Methods

High Ct-value results of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples taken between April 2020 and January 2021 were analysed. Three different SARS-CoV-2 qPCR assays (in-house, Alinity M and Xpert Xpress) were used for screening patients and healthcare workers (HCW). High Ct-value results were defined as "inconclusive". The Ct-value cut-off for the interpretation of the test as "positive" and "inconclusive" were based on quality assurance panel results and manufacturers' instructions.

Results

Out of totally 50.295 samples tested for SARS-CoV-2, the in-house and Alinity M qPCR together yielded 379 inconclusive results. A second sample existed for 217 samples, allowing dynamics of the PCR in time. Of these, 187 were negative (86%), 11 again inconclusive (5%) and 19 positive (9%). Sixteen out of 19 persons with a positive result were HCW, 14 (74%) had a link to a SARS-CoV-2 infected person. The majority of inconclusive results detected with the Xpert Xpress (n=45 of 3603), were related to individuals with a known history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=28, 62%).

Conclusion

This study shows the importance of re-testing inconclusive SARS-CoV-2 qPCR results. Only then, the correct (true or false) interpretation can be given, leading to the right measures.

Comparison and Harmonization of Different Semi-Automated and Automated qRT-PCR Assays in the Assessment of SARS-CoV-2

In SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics, cycle threshold (Ct) values from qRT-PCRs semi-quantitatively estimate a patient’s viral load. However, relevant analytical differences between qRT-PCR assays are often neglected. This study was designed (i) to identify such differences between five commonly used assays and (ii) to demonstrate a straightforward strategy to harmonize them. QRT-PCRs for SARS-CoV-2 were carried out in 85 oropharyngeal swab samples using three fully automated (Alinity m, cobas^®6800 and GeneXpert) and two semi-automated (genesig^® and RIDA^®GENE) assays. Qualitative results (positive/negative) showed excellent comparability between the fully automated assays, but not between the Alinity m and semi-automated methods. Ct values significantly varied between all the methods, with the median values ranging from 22.76 (Alinity m) to 30.89 (RIDA^®GENE) and 31.50 (genesig^®), indicating the lowest sensitivity for semi-automated methods. Passing–Bablok analysis further revealed systemic biases. Assay-specific viral load concentration calculations—based on generated individual standard curves—resulted in much better comparability between the assays. Applying these calculations, significant differences were no longer detectable. This study highlights relevant analytical differences between SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR assays, leading to divergent decisions about the mandatory isolation of infected individuals. Secondly, we propose a strategy to harmonize qRT-PCR assays to achieve better comparability. Our findings are of particular interest for laboratories utilizing different assays.

Viral load decrease in SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 and BA.2 Omicron sublineages infection after treatment with monoclonal antibodies and direct antiviral agents

The efficacy on the Omicron variant of the approved early coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) therapies, especially monoclonal antibodies, has been challenged by in vitro neutralization data, while data on in vivo antiviral activity are lacking. We assessed potential decrease from Day 1 to Day 7 viral load (VL) in nasopharyngeal swabs of outpatients receiving Sotrovimab, Molnupiravir, Remdesivir, or Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 due to sublineages BA.1 or BA.2, and average treatment effect by weighted marginal linear regression models. A total of 521 patients (378 BA.1 [73%], 143 [27%] BA.2) received treatments (Sotrovimab 202, Molnupiravir 117, Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 84, and Remdesivir 118): median age 66 years, 90% vaccinated, median time from symptoms onset 3 days. Day 1 mean VL was 4.12 log2 (4.16 for BA.1 and 4.01 for BA.2). The adjusted analysis showed that Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir significantly reduced VL compared to all the other drugs, except versus Molnupiravir in BA.2. Molnupiravir was superior to Remdesivir in both BA.1 and BA.2, and to Sotrovimab in BA.2. Sotrovimab had better activity than Remdesivir only against BA.1. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir showed the greatest antiviral activity against Omicron variant, comparable to Molnupiravir only in the BA.2 subgroup. VL decrease could be a valuable surrogate of drug activity in the context of the high prevalence of vaccinated people and low probability of hospital admission.

Cycle Threshold Values from Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Assays: Interpretation and Potential Use Cases

Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), are approved for qualitative use. The cycle threshold (Ct) value reflects the concentration of viral RNA in the sample, with lower Ct values indicating higher levels of RNA. Caregivers may wish to use the Ct value to determine the progression of infection, how severe the infection will be, and whether the patient can transmit the virus. Variability of Ct values and the data supporting these uses should be considered when deciding whether and how to use Ct values in clinical care.

COVID-19 in Elderly, Immunocompromised or Diabetic Patients—From Immune Monitoring to Clinical Management in the Hospital

The novel, highly transmissible severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has triggered a pandemic of acute respiratory illness worldwide and remains a huge threat to the healthcare system’s capacity to respond to COVID-19. Elderly and immunocompromised patients are at increased risk for a severe course of COVID-19. These high-risk groups have been identified as developing diminished humoral and cellular immune responses. Notably, SARS-CoV-2 RNA remains detectable in nasopharyngeal swabs of these patients for a prolonged period of time. These factors complicate the clinical management of these vulnerable patient groups. To date, there are no well-defined guidelines for an appropriate duration of isolation for elderly and immunocompromised patients, especially in hospitals or nursing homes. The aim of the present study was to characterize at-risk patient cohorts capable of producing a replication-competent virus over an extended period after symptomatic COVID-19, and to investigate the humoral and cellular immune responses and infectivity to provide a better basis for future clinical management. In our cohort, the rate of positive viral cultures and the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests correlated with higher viral loads. Elderly patients and patients with diabetes mellitus had adequate cellular and humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, while immunocompromised patients had reduced humoral and cellular immune responses. Our patient cohort was hospitalized for longer compared with previously published cohorts. Longer hospitalization was associated with a high number of nosocomial infections, representing a potential hazard for additional complications to patients. Most importantly, regardless of positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection, no virus was culturable beyond a cycle threshold (ct) value of 33 in the majority of samples. Our data clearly indicate that elderly and diabetic patients develop a robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and may be safely de-isolated at a ct value of more than 35.

Non-Pharmacological Preventive Measures Had an Impact on COVID-19 in Healthcare Workers before the Vaccination Effect: A Cohort Study

Healthcare workers have been and still are at the forefront of COVID-19 patient care. Their infection had direct implications and caused important challenges for healthcare performance. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of non-pharmacological preventive measures against COVID-19 among healthcare workers. This study is based on a dynamic cohort of healthcare workers (n = 5543) who had been hired by a Spanish hospital for at least one week during 2020. Negative binomial regression models were used to estimate the incidence rate and the rate ratio (RR) between the two waves (defined from 15 March to 21 June and from 22 June to 31 December), considering natural immunity during the first wave and contextual variables. All models were stratified by socio-occupational variables. The average COVID-19 incidence rate per 1000 worker-days showed a significant reduction between the two waves, dropping from 0.82 (CI95%: 0.73-0.91) to 0.39 (0.35-0.44). The adjusted RR was 0.54 (0.48-0.87) when natural immunity was acquired during the first wave, and contextual variables were considered. The significant reduction of the COVID-19 incidence rate could be explained mainly by improvement in the non-pharmacological preventive interventions. It is needed to identify which measures were more effective. Young workers and those with a replacement contract were identified as vulnerable groups that need greater preventive efforts. Future preparedness plans would benefit from these results.

Clinical evaluation of the automated Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2, Alinity m SARS-CoV-2, and Alinity m Resp-4-Plex assays

BACKGROUND

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections relies on the use of sensitive, accurate and high throughput RT-PCR assays.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the analytical performance of the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 (RT-SARS), Alinity m SARS-CoV-2 (AlinSARS) assays and compared the clinical performance of the RT-SARS, AlinSARS, and Alinity m Resp-4-Plex (Alin4Plex) assays to the Seegene Allplex assay (Allplex) and an inhouse test (Inhouse).

RESULTS

We found 100 % positive percent agreement (PPA) and 100 % negative percent agreement (NPA) comparing RT-SARS and Allplex. RT-SARS, AlinSARS and Inhouse showed 100 % NPA and 100 % PPA across all assays, except for the RdRp target of Inhouse (PPA = 84 %). Similarly, Alin4Plex and Allplex showed high agreement with specimens containing either SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, or RSV. Detection rates of 100 % for SARS-CoV-2 at 50 copies/mL, high precision, and no cross-reactivity with non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory pathogens were observed for RT-SARS and AlinSARS. AlinSARS detected SARS-CoV-2 in spiked throat washes and in specimens infected with SARS-CoV-2 Alpha or Beta variants.

CONCLUSIONS

The newly developed RT-SARS, AlinSARS, and Alin4Plex assays proved to be useful for detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA in clinical samples.

Finding the Middle Ground with the Clinical Laboratory's Role in SARS-CoV-2 Genomic Surveillance

Continued replacement of the dominant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) lineages, and associated surges, highlights the importance of genomic surveillance to identify the next possible threats. Despite concerted efforts between clinical laboratories and public health to generate sequence data, the United States has lagged in percentage of SARS-CoV-2 cases sequenced. A more simple and cost-effective option is needed to allow front-line clinical laboratories to perform high-throughput surveillance and refer important samples for slow and expensive next-generation sequencing (NGS). In this issue of the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, A. Babiker, K. Immergluck, S. D. Stampfer, A. Rao, et al. (J Clin Microbiol 59:e01446-21, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01446-21) describe a rapid and flexible multiplex single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) assay targeting mutations associated with Alpha, Beta/Gamma, and, added later, Delta variants. They show 100% accuracy in characterized variant pools and clinical samples confirmed by NGS. Such an approach could be a happy medium in the role of front-line laboratories to assist with critically needed high-throughput genomic surveillance.

Self-collected oral, nasal and saliva samples yield sensitivity comparable to professionally collected oro-nasopharyngeal swabs in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis among symptomatic outpatients

Introduction

Containing COVID-19 requires broad-scale testing. However, sample collection requires qualified personnel and protective equipment and may cause transmission. We assessed the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2-rtPCR applying three self-sampling techniques as compared to professionally collected oro-nasopharyngeal samples (cOP/NP).

Methods

From 62 COVID-19 outpatients, we obtained: (i) multi-swab, MS; (ii) saliva sponge combined with nasal vestibula, SN; (iii) gargled water, GW; (iv) professionally collected cOP/NP (standard). We compared ct-values for E-gene and ORF1ab and analysed variables reducing sensitivity of self-collecting procedures.

Results

The median ct-values for E-gene and ORF1ab obtained in cOP/NP samples were 20.7 and 20.2, in MS samples 22.6 and 21.8, in SN samples 23.3 and 22.3, and in GW samples 30.3 and 29.8, respectively. MS and SN samples showed sensitivities of 95.2% (95%CI, 86.5-99.0) and GW samples of 88.7% (78.1-95.3). Sensitivity was inversely correlated with ct-values, and became <90% for samples obtained more than 8 days after symptom onset. For MS and SN samples, false negativity was associated with language problems, sampling errors, and symptom duration.

Conclusion

Conclusions from this study are limited to the sensitivity of self-sampling in mildly to moderately symptomatic patients. Still, self-collected oral/nasal/saliva samples can facilitate up-scaling of testing in early symptomatic COVID-19 patients if operational errors are minimized.