Clinical Evaluation of Three Sample-to-Answer Platforms for Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has now spread across the globe. As part of the worldwide response, many molecular diagnostic platforms have been granted emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to identify SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Our objective was to evaluate three sample-to-answer molecular diagnostic platforms (Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 [Xpert Xpress], Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 [ID NOW], and GenMark ePlex SARS-CoV-2 Test [ePlex]) to determine analytical sensitivity, clinical performance, and workflow for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs from 108 symptomatic patients. We found that Xpert Xpress had the lowest limit of detection (100% detection at 100 copies/ml), followed by ePlex (100% detection at 1,000 copies/ml), and ID NOW (20,000 copies/ml). Xpert Xpress also had highest positive percent agreement (PPA) compared to our reference standard (98.3%) followed by ePlex (91.4%) and ID NOW (87.7%). All three assays showed 100% negative percent agreement (NPA). In the workflow analysis, ID NOW produced the lowest time to result per specimen (∼17 min) compared to Xpert Xpress (∼46 min) and ePlex (∼1.5 h), but what ID NOW gained in rapid results, it lost in analytical and clinical performance. ePlex had the longest time to results and showed a slight improvement in PPA over ID NOW. Information about the clinical and analytical performance of these assays, as well as workflow, will be critical in making informed and timely decisions on testing platforms.

Zhen W ，Smith E ，Manji R ，Schron D ，Berry GJ ... -  《-》

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.

The recent emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has posed formidable challenges for clinical laboratories seeking reliable laboratory diagnostic confirmation. The swift advance of the crisis in the United States has led to Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) facilitating the availability of molecular diagnostic assays without the more rigorous examination to which tests are normally subjected prior to FDA approval. Our laboratory currently uses two real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) platforms, the Roche Cobas SARS-CoV2 and the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2. The two platforms demonstrate comparable performances; however, the run times for each assay are 3.5 h and 45 min, respectively. In search for a platform with a shorter turnaround time, we sought to evaluate the recently released Abbott ID Now COVID-19 assay, which is capable of producing positive results in as little as 5 min. We present here the results of comparisons between Abbott ID Now COVID-19 and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 using nasopharyngeal swabs transported in viral transport media and comparisons between Abbott ID Now COVID-19 and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 using nasopharyngeal swabs transported in viral transport media for Cepheid and dry nasal swabs for Abbott ID Now. Regardless of method of collection and sample type, Abbott ID Now COVID-19 had negative results in a third of the samples that tested positive by Cepheid Xpert Xpress when using nasopharyngeal swabs in viral transport media and 45% when using dry nasal swabs.

Basu A ，Zinger T ，Inglima K ，Woo KM ，Atie O ，Yurasits L ，See B ，Aguero-Rosenfeld ME ... -  《-》

Comparison of Four Molecular In Vitro Diagnostic Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Nasopharyngeal Specimens.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the novel human coronavirus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was first discovered in December 2019 as the cause of an outbreak of pneumonia in the city of Wuhan, Hubei province, China. The clinical presentation of COVID-19 is fairly nonspecific, and symptoms overlap those of other seasonal respiratory infections concurrently circulating in the population. Furthermore, it is estimated that up to 80% of infected individuals experience mild symptoms or are asymptomatic, confounding efforts to reliably diagnose COVID-19 empirically. To support infection control measures, there is an urgent need for rapid and accurate molecular diagnostics to identify COVID-19-positive patients. In the present study, we evaluated the analytical sensitivity and clinical performance of the following four SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic assays granted emergency use authorization by the FDA using nasopharyngeal swabs from symptomatic patients: the New York SARS-CoV-2 Real-time Reverse Transcriptase (RT)-PCR Diagnostic Panel (modified CDC) assay, the Simplexa COVID-19 Direct (Diasorin Molecular) assay, GenMark ePlex SARS-CoV-2 (GenMark) assay, and the Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 (Hologic) assay. This information is crucial for both laboratories and clinical teams as decisions on which testing platform to implement are made.

Zhen W ，Manji R ，Smith E ，Berry GJ ... -  《-》

Multicenter Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Test.

Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are the primary means of identifying acute infections caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Accurate and fast test results may permit more efficient use of protective and isolation resources and allow rapid therapeutic interventions. We evaluated the analytical and clinical performance characteristics of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert) test, a rapid, automated molecular test for SARS-CoV-2. Analytical sensitivity and specificity/interference were assessed with infectious SARS-CoV-2; other infectious coronavirus species, including SARS-CoV; and 85 nasopharyngeal swab specimens positive for other respiratory viruses, including endemic human coronaviruses (hCoVs). Clinical performance was assessed using 483 remnant upper- and lower-respiratory-tract specimens previously analyzed by standard-of-care (SOC) NAATs. The limit of detection of the Xpert test was 0.01 PFU/ml. Other hCoVs, including Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, were not detected by the Xpert test. SARS-CoV, a closely related species in the subgenus Sarbecovirus, was detected by a broad-range target (E) but was distinguished from SARS-CoV-2 (SARS-CoV-2-specific N2 target). Compared to SOC NAATs, the positive agreement of the Xpert test was 219/220 (99.5%), and the negative agreement was 250/261 (95.8%). A third tie-breaker NAAT resolved all but three of the discordant results in favor the Xpert test. The Xpert test provided sensitive and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a variety of upper- and lower-respiratory-tract specimens. The high sensitivity and short time to results of approximately 45 min may impact patient management.

Loeffelholz MJ ，Alland D ，Butler-Wu SM ，Pandey U ，Perno CF ，Nava A ，Carroll KC ，Mostafa H ，Davies E ，McEwan A ，Rakeman JL ，Fowler RC ，Pawlotsky JM ，Fourati S ，Banik S ，Banada PP ，Swaminathan S ，Chakravorty S ，Kwiatkowski RW ，Chu VC ，Kop J ，Gaur R ，Sin MLY ，Nguyen D ，Singh S ，Zhang N ，Persing DH ... -  《-》

Multi-center evaluation of cepheid xpert® xpress SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

With the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, rapid diagnostics are paramount to contain the current pandemic. The routinely used realtime RT-PCR is sensitive, specific and able to process large batches of samples. However, turnaround time is long and in cases where fast obtained results are critical, molecular point of care tests (POCT) can be an alternative. Here we report on a multicenter evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test. The Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay was evaluated against the routine in-house real-time RT-PCR assays in three medical microbiology laboratories in The Netherlands. A sensitivity and specificity panel was tested consisting of a dilution series of SARS-CoV-2 and ten samples containing SARS-CoV-2 and a range of other seasonal respiratory viruses. Additionally, 58 samples of patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 with different viral loads and 30 tested negative samples in all three Dutch laboratories using an in-house RT-PCR, were evaluated using Cepheids Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 cartridges. Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 point of care test showed equal performance compared to routine in-house testing with a limit of detection (LOD) of 8.26 copies/mL. Other seasonal respiratory viruses were not detected. In clinical samples Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 reaches an agreement of 100 % compared to all in-house RT-PCRs CONCLUSION: Cepheids GeneXpert Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 is a valuable addition for laboratories in situations where rapid and accurate diagnostics are of the essence.

Wolters F ，van de Bovenkamp J ，van den Bosch B ，van den Brink S ，Broeders M ，Chung NH ，Favié B ，Goderski G ，Kuijpers J ，Overdevest I ，Rahamat-Langedoen J ，Wijsman L ，Melchers WJ ，Meijer A ... -  《-》