Variation in LOD Across SARS-CoV-2 Assay Systems: Need for Standardization

Development of a Diagnostic Microfluidic Chip for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Samples

The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 was first isolated in late 2019; it has spread to all continents, infected over 700 million people, and caused over 7 million deaths worldwide to date. The high transmissibility of the virus and the emergence of novel strains with altered pathogenicity and potential resistance to therapeutics and vaccines are major challenges in the study and treatment of the virus. Ongoing screening efforts aim to identify new cases to monitor the spread of the virus and help determine the danger connected to the emergence of new variants. Given its sensitivity and specificity, nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) such as RT-qPCR are the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 detection. However, due to high costs, complexity, and unavailability in low-resource and point-of-care (POC) settings, the available RT-qPCR assays cannot match global testing demands. An alternative NAAT, RT-LAMP-based SARS-CoV-2 detection offers scalable, low-cost, and rapid testing capabilities. We have developed an automated RT-LAMP-based microfluidic chip that combines the RNA isolation, purification, and amplification steps on the same device and enables the visual detection of SARS-CoV-2 within 40 min from saliva and nasopharyngeal samples. The entire assay is executed inside a uniquely designed, inexpensive disposable microfluidic chip, where assay components and reagents have been optimized to provide precise and qualitative results and can be effectively deployed in POC settings. Furthermore, this technology could be easily adapted for other novel emerging viruses.

Development of a robust TaqMan probe-based one-step multiplex RT-qPCR for simultaneous detection of SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A/B viruses

BACKGROUND

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the simultaneous detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and Influenza A, and Influenza B viruses is essential for rapid differential diagnosis in patients with similar symptoms, especially during "flu season" in the post-pandemic era. So far, several multiplex methods have been approved for the simultaneous detection of SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A, and Influenza B. However, due to the rapid mutation rate of the SARS-CoV-2 genome and the emergence of new variants, existing methods must be improved and updated.

METHODS

To identify a highly conserved region in the SARS-CoV-2 N-gene, a genomic survey was performed to increase the sensitivity and specificity of primer and probe sets targeting the SARS-CoV-2 genome. The 95% LLOD (95% lower limits of detection) were calculated by probit analysis. A total of 70 predetermined clinical samples using singleplex RT-qPCR assays, were included. The clinical performance of the multiplex RT-qPCR assay was determined and compared with a commercial multiplex kit. The Cohen's kappa coefficient, P-value (McNemar's test), Passing-Bablok regression, and Bland Altman agreement analysis were determined to monitor the agreement of the assays.

RESULTS

The novel SARS-CoV-2 primer and probe set designed in this assay was able to detect all variants of concern (VOCs) and variants of interest (VOIs) with high analytical and clinical performance. The 95% LLOD for the multiplex RT-qPCR was 20 copies per reaction for the N gene of SARS-CoV-2, 2 copies per reaction for M1 gene of Influenza A and NS1 gene of Influenza B. The diagnostic sensitivity of the multiplex RT-qPCR was 94.4%, 93.7%, and 100% for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A, and Influenza B genomes, respectively. Moreover, the specificity was identical (100%) in both assays. According to the agreement analysis results, there was no statistical difference between our multiplex assay and the commercial kit.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we developed a novel in-house made multiplex RT-qPCR assay, with high sensitivity, specificity, and reliability for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in clinical samples. This is valuable during Influenza seasons when influenza co-circulates with SARS-CoV-2, as it saves costs, time, and thus specific and timely treatment of patients.

Universal primers for rift valley fever virus whole-genome sequencing

Rift Valley fever (RVF) is a mosquito-borne zoonotic disease causing acute hemorrhagic fever. Accurate identification of mutations and phylogenetic characterization of RVF virus (RVFV) require whole-genome analysis. Universal primers to amplify the entire RVFV genome from clinical samples with low copy numbers are currently unavailable. Thus, we aimed to develop universal primers applicable for all known RVFV strains. Based on the genome sequences available from public databases, we designed eight pairs of universal PCR primers covering the entire RVFV genome. To evaluate primer universality, four RVFV strains (ZH548, Kenya 56 (IB8), BIME-01, and Lunyo), encompassing viral phylogenetic diversity, were chosen. The nucleic acids of the test strains were chemically synthesized or extracted via cell culture. These RNAs were evaluated using the PCR primers, resulting in successful amplification with expected sizes (0.8-1.7 kb). Sequencing confirmed that the products covered the entire genome of the RVFV strains tested. Primer specificity was confirmed via in silico comparison against all non-redundant nucleotide sequences using the BLASTn alignment tool in the NCBI database. To assess the clinical applicability of the primers, mock clinical specimens containing human and RVFV RNAs were prepared. The entire RVFV genome was successfully amplified and sequenced at a viral concentration of 108 copies/mL. Given the universality, specificity, and clinical applicability of the primers, we anticipate that the RVFV universal primer pairs and the developed method will aid in RVFV phylogenomics and mutation detection.

PCR-Free Innovative Strategies for SARS-CoV-2 Detection

The pandemic outbreak caused by SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus brought a crucial issue in public health causing up to now more than 600 million infected people and 6.5 million deaths. Conventional diagnostic methods are based on quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR assay) and immuno-detection (ELISA assay). However, despite these techniques have the advantages of being standardized and consolidated, they keep some main limitations in terms of accuracy (immunoassays), time/cost consumption of analysis, the need for qualified personnel, and lab constrain (molecular assays). There is crucial the need to develop new diagnostic approaches for accurate, fast and portable viral detection and quantification. Among these, PCR-free biosensors represent the most appealing solution since they can allow molecular detection without the complexity of the PCR. This will enable the possibility to be integrated in portable and low-cost systems for massive and decentralized screening of SARS-CoV-2 in a point-of-care (PoC) format, pointing to achieve a performant identification and control of infection. In this review, the most recent approaches for the SARS-CoV-2 PCR-free detection are reported, describing both the instrumental and methodological features, and highlighting their suitability for a PoC application.

Multicenter Diagnostic Evaluation of OnSite COVID-19 Rapid Test (CTK Biotech) among Symptomatic Individuals in Brazil and the United Kingdom

The COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to numerous commercially available antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). To generate and to share accurate and independent data with the global community requires multisite prospective diagnostic evaluations of Ag-RDTs. This report describes the clinical evaluation of the OnSite COVID-19 rapid test (CTK Biotech, CA, USA) in Brazil and the United Kingdom. A total of 496 paired nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs were collected from symptomatic health care workers at Hospital das Clínicas in São Paulo, Brazil, and 211 NP swabs were collected from symptomatic participants at a COVID-19 drive-through testing site in Liverpool, United Kingdom. Swabs were analyzed by Ag-RDT, and results were compared to quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-qPCR). The clinical sensitivity of the OnSite COVID-19 rapid test in Brazil was 90.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.1 to 96.7%) and in the United Kingdom was 75.3% (95% CI, 64.6 to 83.6%). The clinical specificity in Brazil was 99.4% (95% CI, 98.1 to 99.8%) and in the United Kingdom was 95.5% (95% CI, 90.6 to 97.9%). Concurrently, analytical evaluation of the Ag-RDT was assessed using direct culture supernatant of SARS-CoV-2 strains from wild-type (WT), Alpha, Delta, Gamma, and Omicron lineages. This study provides comparative performance of an Ag-RDT across two different settings, geographical areas, and populations. Overall, the OnSite Ag-RDT demonstrated a lower clinical sensitivity than claimed by the manufacturer. The sensitivity and specificity from the Brazil study fulfilled the performance criteria determined by the World Health Organization, but the performance obtained from the UK study failed to do. Further evaluation of Ag-RDTs should include harmonized protocols between laboratories to facilitate comparison between settings. IMPORTANCE Evaluating rapid diagnostic tests in diverse populations is essential to improving diagnostic responses as it gives an indication of the accuracy in real-world scenarios. In the case of rapid diagnostic testing within this pandemic, lateral flow tests that meet the minimum requirements for sensitivity and specificity can play a key role in increasing testing capacity, allowing timely clinical management of those infected, and protecting health care systems. This is particularly valuable in settings where access to the test gold standard is often restricted.

CRISPR-based systems for sensitive and rapid on-site COVID-19 diagnostics

The COVID-19 pandemic has strained healthcare systems. Sensitive, specific, and timely COVID-19 diagnosis is crucial for effective medical intervention and transmission control. RT-PCR is the most sensitive/specific, but requires costly equipment and trained personnel in centralized laboratories, which are inaccessible to resource-limited areas. Antigen rapid tests enable point-of-care (POC) detection but are significantly less sensitive/specific. CRISPR-Cas systems are compatible with isothermal amplification and dipstick readout, enabling sensitive/specific on-site testing. However, improvements in sensitivity and workflow complexity are needed to spur clinical adoption. We outline the mechanisms/strategies of major CRISPR-Cas systems, evaluate their on-site diagnostic capabilities, and discuss future research directions.

A review on the recent achievements on coronaviruses recognition using electrochemical detection methods

Various coronaviruses, which cause a wide range of human and animal diseases, have emerged in the past 50 years. This may be due to their abilities to recombine, mutate, and infect multiple species and cell types. A novel coronavirus, which is a family of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), has been termed COVID-19 by the World Health Organization (WHO). COVID-19 is the strain that has not been previously identified in humans. The early identification and diagnosis of the virus is crucial for effective pandemic prevention. In this study, we review shortly various diagnostic methods for virus assay and focus on recent advances in electrochemical biosensors for COVID-19 detection.

Comparative Performance Evaluation of FilmArray BioFire RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Detection

Background

RT-PCR is the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis, but the lack of standardization of assays, whose diagnostic performance may widely vary, complicates the interpretation of the discrepancies that may be encountered. Study design. We conducted a retrospective study over a ten-month period at the Central Laboratory of Virology of Ibn Sina University Hospital of Rabat. We included nasopharyngeal swabs, positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2 on FilmArray BioFire® Respiratory Panel 2.1 Plus, which were subjected to our laboratory's reference test, MAScIR SARS-CoV-2 M kit 2.0, initially or after a freeze-thaw cycle. The results were compared, and each discrepant sample with sufficient volume underwent the third test, using ARGENE® SARS-CoV-2 R-GENE kit.

Results

Of 80 SARS-CoV-2 negative samples on FilmArray, there were no discordant results, whereas of 80 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples on FilmArray, 21 had discordant results on MAScIR, and only 11 could be tested on ARGENE, revealing positive results in 6 cases. 12.7% and 76.5% correspond to the discordance rates for MAScIR (with one or both targets detected on FilmArray), while 14.3% and 100% correspond to those of ARGENE. As the estimated sensitivity and specificity of FilmArray, compared with MAScIR, were 100% and 79.2%, respectively, its lower limit of detection, and ARGENE assay results, made it difficult to distinguish between false positives on FilmArray and false negatives on MAScIR without further investigations.

Conclusion

The implementation of a new assay in our laboratory revealed discrepancies suggesting a lack of sensitivity of our laboratory's reference test, leading us consequently to retain the SARS-CoV-2 positive result of these discordant samples on FilmArray, regardless of the detection of one or both targets. Our study, which is, to our knowledge, the first comparing FilmArray RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection, highlights the urgent need to standardize RT-PCR assays for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Multisite Clinical Validation of Isothermal Amplification-Based SARS-CoV-2 Detection Assays Using Different Sampling Strategies

Isothermal amplification-based tests have been introduced as rapid, low-cost, and simple alternatives to real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection. The clinical performance of two isothermal amplification-based tests (Atila Biosystems iAMP coronavirus disease of 2019 [COVID-19] detection test and OptiGene COVID-19 direct plus RT-loop-mediated isothermal amplification [LAMP] test) was compared with that of clinical RT-PCR assays using different sampling strategies. A total of 1,378 participants were tested across 4 study sites. Compared with standard of care RT-PCR testing, the overall sensitivity and specificity of the Atila iAMP test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 were 76.2% and 94.9%, respectively, and increased to 88.8% and 89.5%, respectively, after exclusion of an outlier study site. Sensitivity varied based on the anatomic site from which the sample was collected. Sensitivity for nasopharyngeal sampling was 65.4% (range across study sites, 52.8% to 79.8%), for midturbinate was 88.2%, for saliva was 55.1% (range across study sites, 42.9% to 77.8%), and for anterior nares was 66.7% (range across study sites, 63.6% to 76.5%). The specificity for these anatomic collection sites ranged from 96.7% to 100%. Sensitivity improved in symptomatic patients (overall, 82.7%) and those with a higher viral load (overall, 92.4% for cycle threshold [CT] of ≤25). Sensitivity and specificity of the OptiGene direct plus RT-LAMP test, which was conducted at a single study site, were 25.5% and 100%, respectively. The Atila iAMP COVID test with midturbinate sampling is a rapid, low-cost assay for detecting SARS-CoV-2, especially in symptomatic patients and those with a high viral load, and could be used to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in clinical settings. Variation of performance between study sites highlights the need for site-specific clinical validation of these assays before clinical adoption. IMPORTANCE Numerous SARS-CoV-2 detection assays have been developed and introduced into the market under emergency use authorizations (EUAs). EUAs are granted primarily based on small studies of analytic sensitivity and specificity with limited clinical validations. A thorough clinical performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 assays is important to understand the strengths, limitations, and specific applications of these assays. In this first large-scale multicentric study, we evaluated the clinical performance and operational characteristics of two isothermal amplification-based SARS-CoV-2 tests, namely, (i) iAMP COVID-19 detection test (Atila BioSystems, USA) and (ii) COVID-19 direct plus RT-LAMP test (OptiGene Ltd., UK), compared with those of clinical RT-PCR tests using different sampling strategies (i.e., nasopharyngeal, self-sampled anterior nares, self-sampled midturbinate, and saliva). An important specific use for these isothermal amplification-based, rapid, low-cost, and easy-to-perform SARS-CoV-2 assays is to allow for a safer return to preventive clinical encounters, such as cancer screening, particularly in low- and middle-income countries that have low SARS-CoV-2 vaccination rates.

Molecular diagnostics in the era of COVID-19

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to escalate globally and acquires new mutations, accurate diagnostic technologies continue to play a vital role in controlling and understanding the epidemiology of this disease. A plethora of technologies have enabled the diagnosis of individuals, informed clinical management, aided population-wide screening to determine transmission rates and identified cases within the wider community and high-risk settings. This review explores the application of molecular diagnostics technologies in controlling the spread of COVID-19, and the key factors that affect the sensitivity and specificity of the tests used.

Multi-site clinical validation of Isothermal Amplification based SARS-COV-2 detection assays using different sampling strategies

BACKGROUND

Isothermal amplification-based tests were developed as rapid, low-cost, and simple alternatives to real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests for SARS-COV-2 detection.

METHODS

Clinical performance of two isothermal amplification-based tests (Atila Biosystems iAMP COVID-19 detection test and OptiGene COVID-19 Direct Plus RT-LAMP test) was compared to clinical RT-PCR assays using different sampling strategies. A total of 1378 participants were tested across four study sites.

RESULTS

Compared to standard of care RT-PCR testing, the overall sensitivity and specificity of the Atila iAMP test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 were 76.2% and 94.9%, respectively, and increased to 88.8% and 89.5%, respectively, after exclusion of an outlier study site. Sensitivity varied based on the anatomic collected site. Sensitivity for nasopharyngeal was 65.4% (range across study sites:52.8%-79.8%), mid-turbinate 88.2%, saliva 55.1% (range across study sites:42.9%-77.8%) and anterior nares 66.7% (range across study sites:63.6%-76.5%). The specificity for these anatomic collection sites ranged from 96.7% to 100%. Sensitivity improved in symptomatic patients (overall 82.7%) and those with a higher viral load (overall 92.4% for ct≤25). Sensitivity and specificity of the OptiGene Direct Plus RT-LAMP test, conducted at a single study-site, were 25.5% and 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Atila iAMP COVID test with mid-turbinate sampling is a rapid, low-cost assay for detecting SARS-COV-2, especially in symptomatic patients and those with a high viral load, and could be used to reduce the risk of SARS-COV-2 transmission in clinical settings. Variation of performance between study sites highlights the need for site-specific clinical validation of these assays before clinical adoption.