Search

Objectives To evaluate the performance of nasal mid-turbinate self-testing using rapid antigen detection tests (RDT) for persons with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the community. Self-testing for COVID-19 infection with lateral flow assay severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RDT, provides rapid results and could enable frequent and extensive testing in the community, thereby improving the control of SARS-CoV-2. Methods Participants visiting a municipal SARS-CoV-2 testing centre, received self-testing kits containing either the BD Veritor System (BD-RDT) or Roche SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test (Roche-RDT). Oro-nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from the participants for quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) testing. As a proxy for contagiousness, viral culture was performed on a selection of qRT-PCR positive samples to determine the Ct-value at which the chance of a positive culture dropped below 0.5 (Ct-value cut-off). Sensitivity and specificity of self-testing were compared to qRT-PCR with a Ct-value below the Ct value cut-off. Determinants independently associated with a false-negative self-test result were determined. Results A total of 3201 participants were included (BD-RDT n = 1595; Roche-RDT n = 1606). Sensitivity and specificity of self-testing compared with the qRT-PCR results with a Ct-value below the Ct-value cut-off were 78.4% (95% CI 73.2%–83.5%) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.1%–99.7%), respectively. A higher age was independently associated with a false-negative self-testing result with an odds ratio of 1.024 (95% CI 1.003–1.044). Conclusions Self-testing using currently available RDT has a high specificity and relatively high sensitivity to identify individuals with a high probability of contagiousness.

The current reference standard to diagnose a SARS-CoV-2 infection is real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). This test poses substantial challenges for large-scale community testing, especially with respect to the long turnaround times. SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests are an alternative, but typically use a lateral flow assay format rendering them less suitable for analysis of large numbers of samples.We conducted an evaluation of the Diasorin SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection assay (DAA) compared to real-time RT-PCR (Abbott). The study was performed on 248 (74 qRT-PCR positive, 174 qRT-PCR negative) clinical combined oro-nasopharyngeal samples of individuals with COVID-19-like symptoms obtained at a Municipal Health Service test centre. In addition, we evaluated the analytical performance of DAA with a 10-fold dilution series of SARS-CoV-2 containing culture supernatant and compared it with the lateral flow assay SARS-CoV-2 Roche/SD Biosensor Rapid Antigen test (RRA).The DAA had an overall specificity of 100% (95%CI 97.9%-100%) and sensitivity of 73% (95%CI 61.3%-82.7%) for the clinical samples. Sensitivity was 86% (CI95% 74.6%-93.3%) for samples with Ct-value below 30. Both the DAA and RRA detected SARS-CoV-2 up to a dilution containing 5.2 × 10The DAA performed adequately for clinical samples with a Ct-value below 30. Test performance may be further optimised by lowering the relative light unit (RLU) threshold for positivity assuming the in this study used pre-analytical protocol . The test has potential for use as a diagnostic assay for symptomatic community-dwelling individuals early after disease onset in the context of disease control.

Background SARS-CoV-2 is taking a huge toll on society while influenza and RSV detection are also becoming more important. These viruses pose a high burden on health care. Rapid and accurate diagnostics for these pathogens are important for swift triage in the hospital. Fast molecular point of care test (mPOCT) assays for these pathogens can prove an alternative. Here a multi-center evaluation of the Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assay is reported. Study design The Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assay was compared to three reference assays at three Dutch medical microbiology laboratories. An external quality assessment panel consisting of 16 specimens containing SARS-CoV-2, influenza viruses, RSV or human seasonal coronaviruses, or a combination thereof were used. Clinical specimens containing SARS-CoV-2 (n = 57), influenza viruses (n = 21) or RSV (n = 12), at a wide range of relevant concentrations were used. One laboratory also tested zoonotic avian and swine influenza viruses, and eight relevant SARS-CoV-2 variants. Results The Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assay showed equal performance compared to the reference assays. All SARS-CoV-2 variants of interest and variants of concern were accurately detected. Human seasonal coronaviruses were not detected. All four circulating seasonal influenza virus subtypes/lineages and both RSV types were accurately detected as well as a set of recent zoonotic avian and swine influenza viruses. The clinical specimens showed 98.2% concordance using this assay. Conclusion The Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assay is a good alternative for accurate detection for SARS-CoV-2, influenza type A virus, influenza type B virus and RSV types A and B detection in a short timeframe.

Contains fulltext : 220114.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: 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. STUDY DESIGN: 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. RESULTS: 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.

Background The ongoing outbreak of the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) poses a challenge for public health laboratories as virus isolates are unavailable while there is growing evidence that the outbreak is more widespread than initially thought, and international spread through travellers does already occur. Aim We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available. Methods Here we present a validated diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV, its design relying on close genetic relatedness of 2019-nCoV with SARS coronavirus, making use of synthetic nucleic acid technology. Results The workflow reliably detects 2019-nCoV, and further discriminates 2019-nCoV from SARS-CoV. Through coordination between academic and public laboratories, we confirmed assay exclusivity based on 297 original clinical specimens containing a full spectrum of human respiratory viruses. Control material is made available through European Virus Archive – Global (EVAg), a European Union infrastructure project. Conclusion The present study demonstrates the enormous response capacity achieved through coordination of academic and public laboratories in national and European research networks.