Clinical Performance of the Luminex NxTAG CoV Extended Panel for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Nasopharyngeal Specimens from COVID-19 Patients in Hong Kong.

In December 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first reported in the Hubei province of China and later spread all over the world. There was an urgent need of a high-throughput molecular test for screening the COVID-19 patients in the community. The Luminex NxTAG CoV extended panel is a high-throughput FDA emergency use-authorized molecular diagnostic assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This system targets three genes (ORF1ab, N, and E genes) of SARS-CoV-2, the ORF1ab region of SARS-CoV, and the ORF5 region of MERS-CoV. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of this system with nasopharyngeal swab specimens of 214 suspected COVID-19 patients in Hong Kong. The results were compared with our routine COVID-19 reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) protocol with a LightMix SarbecoV E-gene kit and an in-house RdRp/Hel RT-PCR assay. The NxTAG CoV extended panel demonstrated 97.8% sensitivity and 100% specificity to SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal specimens. On low-viral load specimens, the sensitivity of the NxTAG panel could still maintain at 85.71%. Strong agreement was observed between the NxTAG panel and the routine COVID-19 RT-PCR protocol (kappa value = 0.98). Overall, the E gene target of the NxTAG panel demonstrated the highest sensitivity among the three SARS-CoV-2 targets, while the N gene targets demonstrated the least. In conclusion, the NxTAG CoV extended panel is simple to use, and it has high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity to SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal specimens. We recommend this diagnostic system for high-throughput COVID-19 screening in the community.

Chen JH ，Yip CC ，Chan JF ，Poon RW ，To KK ，Chan KH ，Cheng VC ，Yuen KY ... -  《-》

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 ... -  《-》

Improved Molecular Diagnosis of COVID-19 by the Novel, Highly Sensitive and Specific COVID-19-RdRp/Hel Real-Time Reverse Transcription-PCR Assay Validated In Vitro and with Clinical Specimens.

On 31 December 2019, the World Health Organization was informed of a cluster of cases of pneumonia of unknown etiology in Wuhan, China. Subsequent investigations identified a novel coronavirus, now named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), from the affected patients. Highly sensitive and specific laboratory diagnostics are important for controlling the rapidly evolving SARS-CoV-2-associated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic. In this study, we developed and compared the performance of three novel real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assays targeting the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp)/helicase (Hel), spike (S), and nucleocapsid (N) genes of SARS-CoV-2 with that of the reported RdRp-P2 assay, which is used in >30 European laboratories. Among the three novel assays, the COVID-19-RdRp/Hel assay had the lowest limit of detection in vitro (1.8 50% tissue culture infective doses [TCID50]/ml with genomic RNA and 11.2 RNA copies/reaction with in vitro RNA transcripts). Among 273 specimens from 15 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in Hong Kong, 77 (28.2%) were positive by both the COVID-19-RdRp/Hel and RdRp-P2 assays. The COVID-19-RdRp/Hel assay was positive for an additional 42 RdRp-P2-negative specimens (119/273 [43.6%] versus 77/273 [28.2%]; P < 0.001), including 29/120 (24.2%) respiratory tract specimens and 13/153 (8.5%) non-respiratory tract specimens. The mean viral load of these specimens was 3.21 × 104 RNA copies/ml (range, 2.21 × 102 to 4.71 × 105 RNA copies/ml). The COVID-19-RdRp/Hel assay did not cross-react with other human-pathogenic coronaviruses and respiratory pathogens in cell culture and clinical specimens, whereas the RdRp-P2 assay cross-reacted with SARS-CoV in cell culture. The highly sensitive and specific COVID-19-RdRp/Hel assay may help to improve the laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19.

Chan JF ，Yip CC ，To KK ，Tang TH ，Wong SC ，Leung KH ，Fung AY ，Ng AC ，Zou Z ，Tsoi HW ，Choi GK ，Tam AR ，Cheng VC ，Chan KH ，Tsang OT ，Yuen KY ... -  《-》

Commercial Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Molecular Assays: Superior Analytical Sensitivity of cobas SARS-CoV-2 Relative to NxTAG CoV Extended Panel and ID NOW COVID-19 Test.

We implemented multiple nucleic acid amplification test platforms because of the limited availability of test kits for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the early stages of the pandemic. Interpretation of results generated by different platforms and prioritization for testing algorithms required cross-comparison. To compare the analytical sensitivity of 3 commercial SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays, selected samples were studied in parallel with Cobas SARS-CoV-2 test, NxTAG CoV Extended Panel, and ID NOW COVID-19 assays. A total of 8043 SARS-CoV-2 tests performed from March 22 to April 19, 2020, were included in this study. For all 1794 positive specimens detected by the cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay, the cycle threshold (Ct) values were manually tracked and plotted to demonstrate the distribution of sample viral levels. Additionally, 50 and 63 low-positive specimens (Ct values >32) as well as 50 and 61 consecutive positive specimens by the cobas assay were tested with NxTAG and ID NOW, respectively, to estimate their relative sensitivities. The Ct values of cobas SARS-CoV-2-positive samples were evenly distributed throughout ranges of 13.32 to 39.50 (mean, 25.06) and 13.60 to 42.49 (mean, 26.45) for ORF1 and E gene targets, respectively. NxTAG reliably detected only specimens with E gene Ct values lower than 33, and is estimated to detect 89.4% of positive specimens detected by cobas assay. ID NOW had performance variation independent of Ct value and is estimated to detect 83.5% of cobas positives. Clinical specimens exhibit a wide range of viral burden, with a significant portion at low levels. Analytical sensitivity of testing platforms is critical for reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 and uniform care to patients.

Jin R ，Pettengill MA ，Hartnett NL ，Auerbach HE ，Peiper SC ，Wang Z ... -  《-》

Comparison of the Accula SARS-CoV-2 Test with a Laboratory-Developed Assay for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Clinical Nasopharyngeal Specimens.

Several point-of-care (POC) molecular tests have received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The test performance characteristics of the Accula (Mesa Biotech) SARS-CoV-2 POC test need to be evaluated to inform its optimal use. The aim of this study was to assess the test performance of the Accula SARS-CoV-2 test. The performance of the Accula test was assessed by comparing results of 100 nasopharyngeal swab samples previously characterized by the Stanford Health Care EUA laboratory-developed test (SHC-LDT), targeting the envelope (E) gene. Assay concordance was assessed by overall percent agreement, positive percent agreement (PPA), negative percent agreement (NPA), and Cohen's kappa coefficient. Overall percent agreement between the assays was 84.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.3 to 90.6%), PPA was 68.0% (95% CI, 53.3 to 80.5%), and the kappa coefficient was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82). Sixteen specimens detected by the SHC-LDT were not detected by the Accula test and showed low viral load burden, with a median cycle threshold value of 37.7. NPA was 100% (95% CI, 94.2 to 100%). Compared to the SHC-LDT, the Accula SARS-CoV-2 test showed excellent negative agreement. However, positive agreement was low for samples with low viral load. The false-negative rate of the Accula POC test calls for a more thorough evaluation of POC test performance characteristics in clinical settings and for confirmatory testing in individuals with moderate to high pretest probability of SARS-CoV-2 who test negative on Accula.

Hogan CA ，Garamani N ，Lee AS ，Tung JK ，Sahoo MK ，Huang C ，Stevens B ，Zehnder J ，Pinsky BA ... -  《-》