Comparison of Six SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Methods and Correlation with the Cycle Threshold Distribution in Clinical Specimens

Accuracy of point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 detection using buccal swabs in pediatric emergency departments

To optimize the identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected children, specimen collection and testing method are crucial considerations. Ideally, specimen collection is easy and causes minimal discomfort, and the laboratory approach is simple, accurate, and rapid. In this prospective cohort study we evaluated the accuracy of a point-of care nucleic acid device using caregiver/patient self-collected buccal swabs. Participants were recruited in 14 Canadian tertiary care pediatric emergency departments. Children <18 years of age deemed to require SARS-CoV-2 testing were eligible. Caregivers or the patient-collected buccal swabs which were tested on the ABBOTT ID NOW. The reference standard was nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected by a healthcare provider tested via laboratory reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR). We enrolled 2,640 study participants and 14.4% (381/2,640) were SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive. Eight percent (223/2,640) and 85.0% (2,244/2,640) were concordant test-positive and concordant test-negative, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of the investigational approach were 58.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 53.4, 63.5] and 99.3% (95% CI: 98.9, 99.6), respectively. Cycle threshold values were lower among concordant [median 17 (15, 21)] relative to discordant [median 30 (22, 35)] swabs (P < 0.001). Sensitivity was greatest among children <4 years of age, when caregivers performed the swabs, among unvaccinated children, and those with shorter symptom duration. Across multiple pain measures, less pain was associated with buccal swab testing. Although accuracy of the buccal swab point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 test was good and negative agreement was excellent, sensitivity was only 58.5%. Concordance was greater among those with higher viral loads, and the approach involving buccal swabs was less painful.IMPORTANCETo optimize the identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected children, specimen collection and testing method are crucial considerations. Ideally, specimen collection is easy and causes minimal discomfort, and laboratory approach is simple, accurate, and rapid. We evaluated the accuracy and pain associated with buccal swab specimen collection by caregivers or children themselves who were tested using a point-of-care isothermal nucleic acid amplification SARS-CoV-2 test. This novel approach was compared to nasopharyngeal swab specimens tested using laboratory-based PCR tests. While negative agreement was excellent, positive percent agreement was less than 60%. Concordance was greater among those with higher viral loads, and thus, sensitivity is excellent when transmissibility is more likely to occur. Importantly, the approach involving buccal swabs was significantly less painful, and thus, children and their caregivers are more likely to agree to testing using such an approach.CLINICAL TRIALSRegistered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05040763).

Laboratory-based molecular test alternatives to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

BACKGROUND

Diagnosing people with a SARS-CoV-2 infection played a critical role in managing the COVID-19 pandemic and remains a priority for the transition to long-term management of COVID-19. Initial shortages of extraction and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) reagents impaired the desired upscaling of testing in many countries, which led to the search for alternatives to RNA extraction/purification and RT-PCR testing. Reference standard methods for diagnosing the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection rely primarily on real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Alternatives to RT-PCR could, if sufficiently accurate, have a positive impact by expanding the range of diagnostic tools available for the timely identification of people infected by SARS-CoV-2, access to testing and the use of resources.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of alternative (to RT-PCR assays) laboratory-based molecular tests for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern until 30 September 2020 and the WHO COVID-19 Research Database until 31 October 2022. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of people with suspected or known SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection, and studies evaluating commercially developed laboratory-based molecular tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection considered as alternatives to RT-PCR testing. We also included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2, including RT-PCR tests and established clinical diagnostic criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened studies and resolved disagreements by discussing them with a third author. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We presented sensitivity and specificity, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for each test using paired forest plots and summarised results using average sensitivity and specificity using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. We illustrated the findings per index test category and assay brand compared to the WHO's acceptable sensitivity and specificity threshold for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection using nucleic acid tests.

MAIN RESULTS

We included data from 64 studies reporting 94 cohorts of participants and 105 index test evaluations, with 74,753 samples and 7517 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases. We did not identify any published or preprint reports of accuracy for a considerable number of commercially produced NAAT assays. Most cohorts were judged at unclear or high risk of bias in more than three QUADAS-2 domains. Around half of the cohorts were considered at high risk of selection bias because of recruitment based on COVID status. Three quarters of 94 cohorts were at high risk of bias in the reference standard domain because of reliance on a single RT-PCR result to determine the absence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or were at unclear risk of bias due to a lack of clarity about the time interval between the index test assessment and the reference standard, the number of missing results, or the absence of a participant flow diagram. For index tests categories with four or more evaluations and when summary estimations were possible, we found that: a) For RT-PCR assays designed to omit/adapt RNA extraction/purification, the average sensitivity was 95.1% (95% CI 91.1% to 97.3%), and the average specificity was 99.7% (95% CI 98.5% to 99.9%; based on 27 evaluations, 2834 samples and 1178 SARS-CoV-2 cases); b) For RT-LAMP assays, the average sensitivity was 88.4% (95% CI 83.1% to 92.2%), and the average specificity was 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 24 evaluations, 29,496 samples and 2255 SARS-CoV-2 cases); c) for TMA assays, the average sensitivity was 97.6% (95% CI 95.2% to 98.8%), and the average specificity was 99.4% (95% CI 94.9% to 99.9%; 14 evaluations, 2196 samples and 942 SARS-CoV-2 cases); d) for digital PCR assays, the average sensitivity was 98.5% (95% CI 95.2% to 99.5%), and the average specificity was 91.4% (95% CI 60.4% to 98.7%; five evaluations, 703 samples and 354 SARS-CoV-2 cases); e) for RT-LAMP assays omitting/adapting RNA extraction, the average sensitivity was 73.1% (95% CI 58.4% to 84%), and the average specificity was 100% (95% CI 98% to 100%; 24 evaluations, 14,342 samples and 1502 SARS-CoV-2 cases). Only two index test categories fulfil the WHO-acceptable sensitivity and specificity requirements for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid tests: RT-PCR assays designed to omit/adapt RNA extraction/purification and TMA assays. In addition, WHO-acceptable performance criteria were met for two assays out of 35 when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions. At 5% prevalence using a cohort of 1000 people suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the positive predictive value of RT-PCR assays omitting/adapting RNA extraction/purification will be 94%, with three in 51 positive results being false positives, and around two missed cases. For TMA assays, the positive predictive value of RT-PCR assays will be 89%, with 6 in 55 positive results being false positives, and around one missed case.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Alternative laboratory-based molecular tests aim to enhance testing capacity in different ways, such as reducing the time, steps and resources needed to obtain valid results. Several index test technologies with these potential advantages have not been evaluated or have been assessed by only a few studies of limited methodological quality, so the performance of these kits was undetermined. Only two index test categories with enough evaluations for meta-analysis fulfil the WHO set of acceptable accuracy standards for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid tests: RT-PCR assays designed to omit/adapt RNA extraction/purification and TMA assays. These assays might prove to be suitable alternatives to RT-PCR for identifying people infected by SARS-CoV-2, especially when the alternative would be not having access to testing. However, these findings need to be interpreted and used with caution because of several limitations in the evidence, including reliance on retrospective samples without information about the symptom status of participants and the timing of assessment. No extrapolation of found accuracy data for these two alternatives to any test brands using the same techniques can be made as, for both groups, one test brand with high accuracy was overrepresented with 21/26 and 12/14 included studies, respectively. Although we used a comprehensive search and had broad eligibility criteria to include a wide range of tests that could be alternatives to RT-PCR methods, further research is needed to assess the performance of alternative COVID-19 tests and their role in pandemic management.

ct2vl: A Robust Public Resource for Converting SARS-CoV-2 Ct Values to Viral Loads

The amount of SARS-CoV-2 in a sample is often measured using Ct values. However, the same Ct value may correspond to different viral loads on different platforms and assays, making them difficult to compare from study to study. To address this problem, we developed ct2vl, a Python package that converts Ct values to viral loads for any RT-qPCR assay/platform. The method is novel in that it is based on determining the maximum PCR replication efficiency, as opposed to fitting a sigmoid (S-shaped) curve relating signal to cycle number. We calibrated ct2vl on two FDA-approved platforms and validated its performance using reference-standard material, including sensitivity analysis. We found that ct2vl-predicted viral loads were highly accurate across five orders of magnitude, with 1.6-fold median error (for comparison, viral loads in clinical samples vary over 10 orders of magnitude). The package has 100% test coverage. We describe installation and usage both from the Unix command-line and from interactive Python environments. ct2vl is freely available via the Python Package Index (PyPI). It facilitates conversion of Ct values to viral loads for clinical investigators, basic researchers, and test developers for any RT-qPCR platform. It thus facilitates comparison among the many quantitative studies of SARS-CoV-2 by helping render observations in a natural, universal unit of measure.

Relationship between viral load and symptoms in children infected with SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the association between SARS-CoV-2 viral load in respiratory secretions of infected children and signs/symptoms of COVID-19.

METHODS

We reported the clinical characteristics of SARS-CoV-2-infected children during the study period. We compared viral load for several clinical variables, performed a predictive linear regression analysis to identify signs and symptoms significantly associated with viral load, and searched for discriminant viral load thresholds for symptomatic versus asymptomatic infections based on receiver-operating characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 570 patients were included. The median age was 4.75 years. Comparison of CT values by dichotomous variable showed higher viral loads in children with fever, respiratory symptoms, and previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The linear regression analysis confirmed a significant relationship between the CT value with these variables and with age, other symptoms, and asymptomaticity. In particular, infants with fever and SARS-CoV-2 exposure had higher viral loads. No viral load cut-offs were found to distinguish symptomatic from asymptomatic patients.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that fever, SARS-CoV-2 exposure, and respiratory symptoms are associated with higher viral load in children, especially infants, while age, presence of nonrespiratory symptoms, or absence of any symptoms are associated with lower viral load.

IMPACT

Key message: the clinical variables that best predict viral load in infected children are history of previous exposure to a SARS-CoV-2-infected person and presence of fever and respiratory symptoms (higher viral load). Added value to the current literature: this is the first article to prove this point.

IMPACT

SARS-CoV-2 viral load should not be used as a measure of clinical severity of COVID-19 in the pediatric population; however, lower viral load appears to be associated with asymptomatic COVID-19 in older children.

Clinical Evaluation of BioFire COVID-19 Test, BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1, and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Assays for Sample-to-Answer Detection of SARS-CoV-2

Background: Due to the extreme infectivity of SARS-CoV-2, sample-to-answer SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription (RT) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays are urgently needed in order to facilitate infectious disease surveillance and control. The purpose of this study was to evaluate three sample-to-answer SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays—BioFire COVID-19 Test, BioFire RP 2.1, and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2—using clinical samples. Methods: A total of 77 leftover nasopharyngeal swab (NP) swabs (36 positives and 41 negatives) confirmed by reference SARS-CoV-2 RT real-time (q) PCR assay were collected. The clinical sample concordance, as specified by their respective emergency use authorizations (EUAs), in comparison to the reference SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR assay, was assessed. Results: The results showed that all three sample-to-answer SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays provided perfectly concordant results consistent with the reference SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR assay. The BioFire COVID-19 Test exhibited the best turnaround time (TAT) compared to the other assays, regardless of the test results, using one-way analysis of variance followed by Scheffe’s post hoc test (p < 0.001). The Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 showed a shorter average TAT (mean ± standard deviation, 49.9 ± 3.1 min) in the positive samples compared to that (55.7 ± 2.5 min) of the negative samples. Conclusions: Our evaluation demonstrates that the BioFire COVID-19 Test, BioFire RP 2.1, and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assays compare favorably to the reference SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR assay, along with a 100% concordance in assay results for clinical samples and an acceptable analytical performance at their guaranteed limits of detection. The addition of a widely used simultaneous sample-to-answer SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay will contribute to the number of medical laboratories able to test for COVID-19.

Guidelines for COVID-19 Laboratory Testing for Emergency Departments From the New Diagnostic Technology Team of the Taiwan Society of Emergency Medicine

COVID-19 tests have different turnaround times (TATs), accuracy levels, and limitations, which emergency physicians should be aware of. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) can be divided into standard high throughput tests and rapid molecular diagnostic tests at the point of care (POC). The standard NAAT has the advantages of high throughput and high accuracy with a TAT of 3-4 hours. The POC molecular test has the same advantages of high accuracy as standard high throughput PCR, but can be done in 13-45 minutes. Roche cobas Liat is the most commonly used machine in Taiwan, displaying 99%-100% sensitivity and 100% specificity, respectively. Abbott ID NOW is an isothermal PCR-based POC machine with a sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 100%. A high rate of false positives and false negatives is associated with rapid antigen testing. Antibody testing is mostly used as part of public health surveys and for testing for immunity.

Isolation of SARS-CoV-2 in Viral Cell Culture in Immunocompromised Patients With Persistently Positive RT-PCR Results

Immunocompromised adults can have prolonged acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive RT-PCR results, long after the initial diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed to determine if SARS-CoV-2 virus can be recovered in viral cell culture from immunocompromised adults with persistently positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests. We obtained 20 remnant SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive nasopharyngeal swabs from 20 immunocompromised adults with a positive RT-PCR test ≥14 days after the initial positive test. The patients' 2nd test samples underwent SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing, and culture with Vero-hACE2-TMPRSS2 cells. Viral RNA and cultivable virus were recovered from the cultured cells after qRT-PCR and plaque assays. Of 20 patients, 10 (50%) had a solid organ transplant and 5 (25%) had a hematologic malignancy. For most patients, RT-PCR Ct values increased over time. There were 2 patients with positive viral cell cultures; one patient had chronic lymphocytic leukemia treated with venetoclax and obinutuzumab who had a low viral titer of 27 PFU/mL. The second patient had marginal zone lymphoma treated with bendamustine and rituximab who had a high viral titer of 2 x 106 PFU/mL. Most samples collected ≥7 days after an initial positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR had negative viral cell cultures. The 2 patients with positive viral cell cultures had hematologic malignancies treated with chemotherapy and B cell depleting therapy. One patient had a high concentration titer of cultivable virus. Further data are needed to determine risk factors for persistent viral shedding and methods to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission from immunocompromised hosts.