Clinical Performance of the cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B Assay in Nasal Samples

Multiplex CLIA-waived point-of-care tests for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B, ± other respiratory pathogens: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Many multiplex CLIA-waived point of care tests are available in the United States for community pharmacists to incorporate into their practice.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the eleven multiplex CLIA-waived point of care tests available for detecting SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A and B ± other respiratory pathogens and summarize their performance characteristics from published studies.

METHODS

Food and Drug Administration websites and databases were utilized to identify currently available tests. Literature searches were conducted and most recently updated through July 21, 2023 to identify studies examining the tests' performance. Primary literature was included if it reported positive and negative percent agreement (PPA and NPA, respectively) for SARS-CoV-2 or influenza A or B, had a comparator, and was conducted in a CLIA-waived environment. Relevant study characteristics, including number of samples, sample collection method, age of participants, comparator, PPA/NPA for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) were extracted. Data extraction was performed by two authors with any discordant data reconciled by a third author.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. The PPA for SARS-CoV-2 ranged from 86.7% to 100%, and NPA ranged from 90.4% to 100%. The PPA for influenza A and B ranged from 92.9% to 100% and 95.3% to 100%, respectively, while NPA ranged from 96.6% to 100% and 98.2% to 100%, respectively. Both the Xpert Xpress Plus and SpotFire tests showed similar results for RSV with PPA ranging from 96.3% to 100% and NPA ranging from 98.4% to 100%.

CONCLUSION

Currently available multiplex POCT for SARS CoV-2 and influenza A and B ± RSV have demonstrated efficacy in detecting multiple pathogens in a single test. Pathogen detection, costs, materials needed to perform the test (eg, readers), and study data (PPA and NPA) should be utilized to help determine which tests should be ordered for a particular practice setting.

Respiratory virus infections after allogeneic stem cell transplantation: Current understanding, knowledge gaps, and recent advances

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, common community-acquired seasonal respiratory viruses (CARVs) were a significant threat to the health and well-being of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT) recipients, often resulting in severe illness and even death. The pandemic has further highlighted the significant risk that immunosuppressed patients, including allo-HCT recipients, face when infected with SARS-CoV-2. As preventive transmission measures are relaxed and CARVs circulate again among the community, including in allo-HSCT recipients, it is crucial to understand the current state of knowledge, gaps, and recent advances regarding CARV infection in allo-HCT recipients. Urgent research is needed to identify seasonal respiratory viruses as potential drivers for future pandemics.

Development of a mobile laboratory system in hydrogen fuel cell buses and evaluation of the performance for COVID-19 RT-PCR testing

We designed and developed two new types of hydrogen fuel cell (HFC) buses (motorcoach and minibus) with a mobile laboratory system. Feasibility studies have been performed for mobile laboratory testing, particularly for the laboratory performance of COVID-19 RT-PCR (PCR). We evaluated the driving range capability, PCR sample size capacity, turnaround time (TAT), and analytical performance for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Saliva samples were used for the current study, and the analytical performance was compared with that of the reference PCR. The estimated driving range and sample size capacity of the HFC and HFC minibus were 432 km and 2847 samples, respectively, for the HFC motorcoach and 313 km and 1949 samples for the HFC minibus. For the TAT, the median time between sample submission and completion of PCR was 86 min for the motorcoach and 76 min for the minibus, and the median time between sample submission and electronic reporting of the result to each visitor was 182 min for the motorcoach and 194 min for the minibus. A secondary analysis of 1574 HFC mobile laboratory testing samples was conducted, and all negative samples were found to be negative by reference PCR. Furthermore, all samples were confirmed to be positive by reference PCR or other molecular examinations.

Preparing for the next pandemic: lessons learnt from the implementation of point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 testing in an emergency department

Point-of-care testing (POCT) provides rapid, accurate results that facilitate diagnosis and patient management. POCT for infectious agents allows timely infection prevention and control interventions and informs decisions around safe patient placement. However, POCT implementation requires careful governance as they are primarily operated by staff with limited prior education on laboratory quality control and assurance processes. Here, we describe our experience implementing SARS-CoV-2 POCT in the emergency department of a large tertiary referral hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe collaborative governance between pathology and clinical specialities, quality assurance, testing (volume and positivity rates), impact on patient flow and focus on lessons learnt during implementation that should be incorporated into revised pandemic preparedness planning.

Evaluation of the cobas Liat detection test for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses following the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the clinical performance of the cobas Liat SARS‑CoV‑2 & Influenza A/B assay (LiatCOVID/flu) for the detection of both severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza viruses during the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron outbreak.

METHODS

Residual nasopharyngeal swab samples (NPS) previously tested with cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B for SARS-CoV-2 and with the Allplex Respiratory Panel 1 for influenza viruses were collected. All samples were submitted to the LiatCOVID/flu assay.

RESULTS

A total of 1147 samples were collected comprising 167 SARS-CoV-2-positive, 556 SARS-CoV-2-negative, 224 influenza-positive, and 200 influenza-negative cases. The positive percent agreement (PPA)/negative percent agreement (NPA) of LiatCOVID/flu for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses compared to the previously tested methods were 100% of 100% and 99.6% of 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The LiatCOVID/flu assay shows an acceptable performance in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses using NPS samples.

Prospective study of three saliva qualitative antigen testing kits for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 among mainly symptomatic patients in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Rapid qualitative antigen testing has been widely used for the laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 with nasopharyngeal samples. Saliva samples have been used as alternative samples, but the analytical performance of those samples for qualitative antigen testing has not been sufficiently evaluated.

METHODS

A prospective observational study evaluated the analytical performance of three In Vitro Diagnostics (IVD) approved COVID-19 rapid antigen detection kits for saliva between June 2022 and July 2022 in Japan using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) as a reference. A nasopharyngeal sample and a saliva sample were simultaneously obtained, and RT-qPCR was performed.

RESULTS

In total, saliva samples and nasopharyngeal samples were collected from 471 individuals (RT-qPCR-positive, n = 145) for the analysis. Of these, 96.6% were symptomatic. The median copy numbers were 1.7 × 10⁶ copies/mL for saliva samples and 1.2 × 10⁸ copies/mL for nasopharyngeal samples (p < 0.001). Compared with the reference, the sensitivity and specificity were 44.8% and 99.7% for ImunoAce SARS-CoV-2 Saliva, 57.2% and 99.1% for Espline SARS-CoV-2 N, and 60.0% and 99.1% for QuickChaser Auto SARS-CoV-2, respectively. The sensitivities of all antigen testing kit were 100% for saliva samples with a high viral load (>10⁷ copies/mL), whereas the sensitivities were <70% for high-viral-load nasopharyngeal samples (>10⁷ copies/mL).

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 rapid antigen detection kits with saliva showed high specificity, but the sensitivity varied among kits, and were also insufficient for the detection of symptomatic COVID-19 patients.

Analytical performance of the rapid qualitative antigen kit for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 during widespread circulation of the Omicron variant

INTRODUCTION

Rapid qualitative antigen testing is essential in the clinical management of COVID-19. However, most evaluations of antigen tests have been performed before the emergence of the Omicron variant.

METHODS

This prospective observational study evaluated QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag, a rapid antigen detection test between December 2021 and February 2022 in Japan, using real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR as a reference. Two nasopharyngeal samples were simultaneously collected for antigen testing and for RT-PCR. Variant analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequencing was also performed.

RESULTS

In total, nasopharyngeal samples were collected from 1073 participants (417 positive; 919 symptomatic; 154 asymptomatic) for analysis. Compared with those of RT-PCR, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 94.2% (95% CI: 91.6%-96.3%), 99.5% (95% CI: 98.7%-99.9%), 99.2% (95% CI: 97.8%-99.8%), and 96.5% (95% CI: 94.8%-97.7%), respectively. The sensitivity among symptomatic individuals was 94.3% (95% CI: 91.5%-96.4%). Overall, 85.9% of sequences were classified as Omicron sublineage BA.1, 12.4% were Omicron sublineage BA.2, and 1.6% were Delta B.1.617.2. (Delta variant). Most of the samples (87.1%) had Ct values of <25, and the sensitivity was 47.4% for low viral load samples (Ct ≥ 30); a similar trend has been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The QuickNavi-COVID19 Ag test showed sufficient diagnostic performance for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages BA.1 and BA.2 from nasopharyngeal samples. However, the current study was mainly performed in symptomatic patients and the results are not sufficiently applicable for asymptomatic patients.

Evaluation of the Kaira COVID-19/Flu/RSV Detection Kit for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and respiratory syncytial virus: A comparative study with the PowerChek SARS-CoV-2, influenza A&B, RSV Multiplex Real-time PCR Kit

BACKGROUND

Co-circulation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other respiratory viruses, such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), can be a severe threat to public health. The accurate detection and differentiation of these viruses are essential for clinical laboratories. Herein, we comparatively evaluated the performance of the Kaira COVID-19/Flu/RSV Detection Kit (Kaira; Optolane, Seongnam, Korea) for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B, and RSV in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens with that of the PowerChek SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A&B, RSV Multiplex Real-time PCR Kit (PowerChek; Kogene Biotech, Seoul, Korea).

METHODS

A total of 250 archived NPS specimens collected for routine clinical testing were tested in parallel by the Kaira and PowerChek assays. RNA standards were serially diluted and tested by the Kaira assay to calculate the limit of detection (LOD).

RESULTS

The positive and negative percent agreements between the Kaira and PowerChek assays were as follows: 100% (49/49) and 100% (201/201) for SARS-CoV-2; 100% (50/50) and 99.0% (198/200) for influenza A; 100% (50/50) and 100% (200/200) for influenza B; and 100% (51/51) and 100% (199/199) for RSV, respectively. The LODs of the Kaira assay for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B, and RSV were 106.1, 717.1, 287.3, and 442.9 copies/mL, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Kaira assay showed comparable performance to the PowerChek assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B, and RSV in NPS specimens, indicating that the Kaira assay could be a useful diagnostic tool when these viruses are co-circulating.