Clinical evaluation of the molecular-based BD SARS-CoV-2/Flu for the BD MAX™ system

Clinical Performance of the BD Respiratory Viral Panel for BD MAX™ System in Detecting SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A and B, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus

Using a nasopharyngeal (NP) or anterior nasal (NS) swab from prospectively collected or retrospective specimens, we assessed the clinical performance of the BD Respiratory Viral Panel (BD RVP) for BD MAX System against FDA-cleared or authorized comparators. Across prospective and retrospective specimens, positive percent agreement (PPA) was ≥ 98.4% for SARS-CoV-2, ≥ 96.7% for influenza (flu) A, ≥ 91.7% for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and 100% for flu B (retrospective only) while negative percent agreement (NPA) was ≥ 97.7% across all targets, leading to the assay FDA clearance. A head-to-head comparison of NS versus NP results with BD RVP was also performed; PPA was ≥ 90% and NPA ≥ 98.2% for SARS-CoV-2, flu A and RSV. These findings confirm that the BD MAX RVP assay performs well for detection and differentiation of the three viruses in NP and NS specimens, with strong interrater agreements for NS versus NP comparisons.

Performance evaluation of the Panbio COVID-19/Flu A&B Panel for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, and influenza B antigens using mid-turbinate nasal swabs

The Panbio COVID-19/Flu A&B Panel (Abbott) is an in vitro diagnostic rapid test designed for the qualitative detection of nucleocapsid proteins SARS-CoV-2 and nucleoprotein influenza A and B antigens in nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) swab specimens from symptomatic individuals meeting COVID-19 and influenza clinical and/or epidemiological criteria. This study, the largest global one to date using fresh samples, aimed to assess the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the Panbio COVID-19/Flu A&B Panel in freshly collected NMT swab specimens from individuals suspected of respiratory viral infection consistent with COVID-19 and/or influenza within the first 5 days of symptom onset compared with results obtained with the cobas SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B qualitative assay (cobas 6800/8800 systems), which were tested using nasopharyngeal swab samples. A total of 512 evaluable subjects were enrolled in the COVID-19 cohort across 18 sites, and 1,148 evaluable subjects were enrolled in the influenza cohort across 22 sites in the Asia-Pacific, Europe, and the USA. The Panbio COVID-19/Flu A&B Panel demonstrated a sensitivity of 80.4% and a specificity of 99.7% for COVID-19. For influenza A, the sensitivity and specificity rates were 80.6% and 99.3%, respectively. Likewise, for influenza B, the sensitivity and specificity rates were 80.8% and 99.4%, respectively. In conclusion, the Panbio COVID-19/Flu A&B Panel emerges as a suitable rapid test for detecting COVID-19 and influenza in symptomatic subjects across diverse global populations, exhibiting high sensitivity. The assay achieved a sensitivity of 94.4% in samples with Ct ≤24 for COVID-19 and 92.6% in samples with Ct ≤30 for influenza A and B.

IMPORTANCE

The Panbio COVID-19/Flu A&B Panel is a suitable rapid test for detecting COVID-19 and influenza in symptomatic subjects across diverse global populations, exhibiting high sensitivity. The assay achieved a sensitivity of 94.0% in samples with Ct ≤24 for COVID-19 and 92.6% in samples with Ct ≤30 for influenza A and B.

Implementation and clinical evaluation of an Mpox virus laboratory-developed test on a fully automated random-access platform

While Mpox virus (MPXV) diagnostics were performed in specialized laboratories only, the global emergence of Mpox cases in 2022 revealed the need for a more readily available diagnostic. Automated random-access platforms with fast nucleic acid extraction and PCR have become established in many laboratories, providing faster and more accessible testing. In this study, we adapted a previously published generic MPXV-PCR as a lab-developed test (LDT) on a NeuMoDx Molecular System and isolated MPXV clones from patient materials. To reduce the handling of infectious material, we evaluated a viral lysis buffer (VLB) for sample pretreatment. We further compared the MPXV-LDT-PCR to conventional real-time PCR, determined its sensitivity and specificity using positive swabs, and assessed its performance using external quality assessment samples. Pretreatment of samples with 50% VLB reduced MPXV infectivity by approximately 200-fold while maintaining PCR sensitivity. The assay demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 100% with no cross-reactivity in the samples tested and performed with a limit of detection of 262 GE/mL. In summary, the assay had a turnaround time of fewer than 2 h and can easily be transferred to other automated PCR platforms, providing a basis for developing rapid assays for upcoming pandemics.

Influenza A, Influenza B, and SARS-CoV-2 Similarities and Differences – A Focus on Diagnosis

In late December 2019, the first cases of viral pneumonia caused by an unidentified pathogen were reported in China. Two years later, SARS-CoV-2 was responsible for almost 450 million cases, claiming more than 6 million lives. The COVID-19 pandemic strained the limits of healthcare systems all across the world. Identifying viral RNA through real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction remains the gold standard in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, equipment cost, availability, and the need for trained personnel limited testing capacity. Through an unprecedented research effort, new diagnostic techniques such as rapid diagnostic testing, isothermal amplification techniques, and next-generation sequencing were developed, enabling accurate and accessible diagnosis. Influenza viruses are responsible for seasonal outbreaks infecting up to a quarter of the human population worldwide. Influenza and SARS-CoV-2 present with flu-like symptoms, making the differential diagnosis challenging solely on clinical presentation. Healthcare systems are likely to be faced with overlapping SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza outbreaks. This review aims to present the similarities and differences of both infections while focusing on the diagnosis. We discuss the clinical presentation of Influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and techniques available for diagnosis. Furthermore, we summarize available data regarding the multiplex diagnostic assay of both viral infections.