Performance of Abbott ID Now COVID-19 Rapid Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Using Nasopharyngeal Swabs Transported in Viral Transport Media and Dry Nasal Swabs in a New York City Academic Institution

Advances and insights in the diagnosis of viral infections

Viral infections are the most common among diseases that globally require around 60 percent of medical care. However, in the heat of the pandemic, there was a lack of medical equipment and inpatient facilities to provide all patients with viral infections. The detection of viral infections is possible in three general ways such as (i) direct virus detection, which is performed immediately 1-3 days after the infection, (ii) determination of antibodies against some virus proteins mainly observed during/after virus incubation period, (iii) detection of virus-induced disease when specific tissue changes in the organism. This review surveys some global pandemics from 1889 to 2020, virus types, which induced these pandemics, and symptoms of some viral diseases. Non-analytical methods such as radiology and microscopy also are overviewed. This review overlooks molecular analysis methods such as nucleic acid amplification, antibody-antigen complex determination, CRISPR-Cas system-based viral genome determination methods. Methods widely used in the certificated diagnostic laboratory for SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A, B, C, HIV, and other viruses during a viral pandemic are outlined. A comprehensive overview of molecular analytical methods has shown that the assay's sensitivity, accuracy, and suitability for virus detection depends on the choice of the number of regions in the viral open reading frame (ORF) genome sequence and the validity of the selected analytical method.

Multicenter Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV Test

With the approach of respiratory virus season in the Northern Hemisphere, clinical microbiology and public health laboratories will need rapid diagnostic assays to distinguish severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections for diagnosis and surveillance. In this study, the clinical performance of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV test (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) for nasopharyngeal swab specimens was evaluated in four centers: Johns Hopkins Medical Microbiology Laboratory, Northwell Health Laboratories, NYC Public Health Laboratory, and Los Angeles County/University of Southern California (LAC+USC) Medical Center.

With the approach of respiratory virus season in the Northern Hemisphere, clinical microbiology and public health laboratories will need rapid diagnostic assays to distinguish severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections for diagnosis and surveillance. In this study, the clinical performance of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV test (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) for nasopharyngeal swab specimens was evaluated in four centers: Johns Hopkins Medical Microbiology Laboratory, Northwell Health Laboratories, NYC Public Health Laboratory, and Los Angeles County/University of Southern California (LAC+USC) Medical Center. A total of 319 nasopharyngeal swab specimens, positive for SARS-CoV-2 (n = 75), influenza A virus (n = 65), influenza B virus (n = 50), or RSV (n = 38) or negative (n = 91) by the standard-of-care nucleic acid amplification tests at each site, were tested using the Cepheid panel test. The overall positive percent agreement for the SARS-CoV-2 target was 98.7% (n = 74/75), and the negative agreement was 100% (n = 91), with all other analytes showing 100% total agreement (n = 153). Standard-of-care tests to which the Cepheid panel was compared included the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2, Cepheid Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV, GenMark ePlex respiratory panel, BioFire respiratory panel 2.1 and v1.7, DiaSorin Simplexa COVID-19 Direct, and Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assays. The Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV test showed high sensitivity and accuracy for all analytes included in the test. This test will provide a valuable clinical diagnostic and public health solution for detecting and differentiating SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B virus, and RSV infections during the current respiratory virus season.

Review of analytical performance of COVID-19 detection methods

In the recent SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, public health experts have emphasized testing, tracking infected people, and tracing their contacts as an effective strategy to reduce the spread of the virus. Several diagnostic methods are reported for detecting the coronavirus in clinical, research, and public health laboratories. Some tests detect the infection directly by detecting the viral RNA and other tests detect the infection indirectly by detecting the host antibodies. A diagnostic test during the pandemic should help make an appropriate clinical decision in a short period of time. Recently reported diagnostic methods for SARS-CoV-2 have varying throughput, batching capacity, requirement of infrastructure setting, analytical performance, and turnaround times ranging from a few minutes to several hours. These factors should be considered while selecting a reliable and rapid diagnostic method to help make an appropriate decision and prompt public health interventions. This paper reviews recent SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic methods published in journals and reports released by regulatory agencies. We compared the analytical efficiency including limit of detection, sensitivity, specificity, and throughput. In addition, we also looked into ease of use, affordability, and availability of accessories. Finally, we discuss the limitations of the methods and provide our perspectives on priorities for future test development.

Fighting COVID-19: Integrated Micro- and Nanosystems for Viral Infection Diagnostics

The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) highlights the importance of rapid and sensitive diagnostics of viral infection that enables the efficient tracing of cases and the implementation of public health measures for disease containment. The immediate actions from both academia and industry have led to the development of many COVID-19 diagnostic systems that have secured fast-track regulatory approvals and have been serving our healthcare frontlines since the early stage of the pandemic. On diagnostic technologies, many of these clinically validated systems have significantly benefited from the recent advances in micro- and nanotechnologies in terms of platform design, analytical method, and system integration and miniaturization. The continued development of new diagnostic platforms integrating micro- and nanocomponents will address some of the shortcomings we have witnessed in the existing COVID-19 diagnostic systems. This Perspective reviews the previous and ongoing research efforts on developing integrated micro- and nanosystems for nucleic acid-based virus detection, and highlights promising technologies that could provide better solutions for the diagnosis of COVID-19 and other viral infectious diseases. With the summary and outlook of this rapidly evolving research field, we hope to inspire more research and development activities to better prepare our society for future public health crises.

Detecting the Coronavirus (COVID-19)

The COVID-19 pandemic has created huge damage to society and brought panic around the world. Such panic can be ascribed to the seemingly deceptive features of COVID-19: Compared to other deadly viral outbreaks, it has medium transmission and mortality rates. As a result, the severity of the causative coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, was deeply underestimated by society at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak. Based on this, in this review, we define the viruses with features similar to those of SARS-CoV-2 as the Panic Zone viruses. To contain those viruses, accurate and fast diagnosis followed by effective isolation and treatment of patients are pivotal at the early stage of virus breakouts. This is especially true when there is no cure or vaccine available for a transmissible disease, which is the case for the current COVID-19 pandemic. As of July 2020, more than 100 kits for COVID-19 diagnosis on the market have been surveyed in this review, while emerging sensing techniques for SARS-CoV-2 are also discussed. It is of critical importance to rationally use these kits for efficient management and control of the Panic Zone viruses. Therefore, we discuss guidelines to select diagnostic kits at different outbreak stages of the Panic Zone viruses, SARS-CoV-2 in particular. While it is of utmost importance to use nucleic acid based detection kits with low false negativity (high sensitivity) at the early stage of an outbreak, the low false positivity (high specificity) gains importance at later stages of the outbreak. When society is set to reopen from the lockdown stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, it becomes critical to have immunoassay based kits with high specificity to identify people who can safely return to society after their recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infections. Finally, since a massive attack from a viral pandemic requires a massive defense from the whole society, we urge both government and the private sector to research and develop affordable and reliable point-of-care testing (POCT) kits, which can be used massively by the general public (and therefore called massive POCT) to contain Panic Zone viruses in the future.

Nasal-Swab Testing Misses Patients with Low SARS-CoV-2 Viral Loads

The urgent need for large-scale diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 has prompted pursuit of sample-collection methods of sufficient sensitivity to replace sampling of the nasopharynx (NP). Among these alternatives is collection of nasal-swab samples, which can be performed by the patient, avoiding the need for healthcare personnel and personal protective equipment. Previous studies have reached opposing conclusions regarding whether nasal sampling is concordant or discordant with NP. To resolve this disagreement, we compared nasal and NP specimens collected by healthcare workers in a cohort consisting of individuals clinically suspected of COVID-19 and outpatients known to be SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive undergoing follow-up. We investigated three different transport conditions, including traditional viral transport media (VTM) and dry swabs, for each of two different nasal-swab collection protocols on a total of 308 study participants, and compared categorical results and Ct values to those from standard NP swabs collected at the same time from the same patients. All testing was performed by RT-PCR on the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 RealTime EUA (limit of detection [LoD], 100 copies viral genomic RNA/mL transport medium). We found high concordance (Cohen's kappa >0.8) only for patients with viral loads above 1,000 copies/mL. Those with viral loads below 1,000 copies/mL, the majority in our cohort, exhibited low concordance (Cohen's kappa = 0.49); most of these would have been missed by nasal testing alone. Previous reports of high concordance may have resulted from use of assays with higher LoD (≥1,000 copies/mL). These findings counsel caution in use of nasal testing in healthcare settings and contact-tracing efforts, as opposed to screening of asymptomatic, low-prevalence, low-risk populations. Nasal testing is an adjunct, not a replacement, for NP.