Search

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic illustrated the important role of diagnostic tests, including lateral flow tests (LFTs), in identifying patients and their contacts to slow the spread of infections. INSTAND performed external quality assessments (EQA) for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection with lyophilized and chemically inactivated cell culture supernatant of SARS-CoV-2 infected Vero cells. A pre-study demonstrated the suitability of the material. Participants reported qualitative and/or quantitative antigen results using either LFTs or automated immunoassays for five EQA samples per survey. 711 data sets were reported for LFT detection in three surveys in 2021. This evaluation focused on the analytical sensitivity of different LFTs and automated immunoassays. The inter-laboratory results showed at least 94% correct results for non-variant of concern (VOC) SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection for viral loads of ≥ 4.75 × 106 copies/mL and SARS-CoV-2 negative samples. Up to 85% had success for a non-VOC viral load of ~ 1.60 × 106 copies/mL. A viral load of ~ 1.42 × 107 copies/mL of the Delta VOC was reported positive in > 96% of results. A high specificity was found with almost 100% negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen results for HCoV 229E and HCoV NL63 positive samples. Quantitative results correlated with increasing SARS-CoV-2 viral load but showed a broad scatter. This study shows promising SARS-CoV-2 antigen test performance of the participating laboratories, but further investigations with the now predominant Omicron VOC are needed.

SARS-CoV-2, the cause of COVID-19, requires reliable diagnostic methods to track the circulation of this virus. Following the development of RT-qPCR methods to meet this diagnostic need in January 2020, it became clear from interlaboratory studies that the reported Ct values obtained for the different laboratories showed high variability. Despite this the Ct values were explored as a quantitative cut off to aid clinical decisions based on viral load. Consequently, there was a need to introduce standards to support estimation of SARS-CoV-2 viral load in diagnostic specimens. In a collaborative study, INSTAND established two reference materials (RMs) containing heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 with SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads of ~107 copies/mL (RM 1) and ~106 copies/mL (RM 2), respectively. Quantification was performed by RT-qPCR using synthetic SARS-CoV-2 RNA standards and digital PCR. Between November 2020 and February 2021, German laboratories were invited to use the two RMs to anchor their Ct values measured in routine diagnostic specimens, with the Ct values of the two RMs. A total of 305 laboratories in Germany were supplied with RM 1 and RM 2. The laboratories were requested to report their measured Ct values together with details on the PCR method they used to INSTAND. This resultant 1,109 data sets were differentiated by test system and targeted gene region. Our findings demonstrate that an indispensable prerequisite for linking Ct values to SARS-CoV-2 viral loads is that they are treated as being unique to an individual laboratory. For this reason, clinical guidance based on viral loads should not cite Ct values. The RMs described were a suitable tool to determine the specific laboratory Ct for a given viral load. Furthermore, as Ct values can also vary between runs when using the same instrument, such RMs could be used as run controls to ensure reproducibility of the quantitative measurements.

Abtract Establishing a cure for HIV is hindered by the persistence of latently infected cells which constitute the viral reservoir. Real-time qPCR, used for quantification of this reservoir by measuring HIV DNA, requires external calibration; a common choice of calibrator is the 8E5 cell line, which is assumed to be stable and to contain one HIV provirus per cell. In contrast, digital PCR requires no external calibration and potentially provides ‘absolute’ quantification. We compared the performance of qPCR and dPCR in quantifying HIV DNA in 18 patient samples. HIV DNA was detected in 18 by qPCR and in 15 by dPCR, the difference being due to the smaller sample volume analysed by dPCR. There was good quantitative correlation (R2 = 0.86) between the techniques but on average dPCR values were only 60% of qPCR values. Surprisingly, investigation revealed that this discrepancy was due to loss of HIV DNA from the 8E5 cell calibrant. 8E5 extracts from two other sources were also shown to have significantly less than one HIV DNA copy per cell and progressive loss of HIV from 8E5 cells during culture was demonstrated. We therefore suggest that the copy number of HIV in 8E5 extracts be established by dPCR prior to use as calibrator.