Evaluation of the analytical and clinical performance of two RT-PCR based point-of-care tests; Cepheid Xpert® Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus and SD BioSensor STANDARD™ M10 Flu/RSV/SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Rapid and accurate detection of viral respiratory infections is important for infection control measures. This study compares the analytical and clinical performance of the Xpert® Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test ("Xpert", Cepheid) and the STANDARD™ M10 Flu/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 test ("M10", SD Biosensor). Both tests are quadruplex RT-PCR assays for rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B and RSV. STUDY DESIGN: Analytical sensitivities were determined by limit of detection for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B and RSV, respectively. Additionally, the clinical performance of the Xpert and the M10 tests was evaluated against standard-of-care RT-PCR by testing of 492 clinical specimens. RESULTS: The analytical sensitivities for Xpert versus M10 test was 10, 50, 50 and 300 versus 300, 200, 800 and 1500 copies/mL for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B and RSV, respectively. Clinical sensitivity for the Xpert test was superior across all four pathogens compared to the M10 test. Xpert showed clinical sensitivity of 100 % in all Ct-ranges for all four pathogens whereas M10 showed clinical sensitivity of 100 % in the 25-30 Ct-range, 84-100 % in the 30-35 Ct-range and 47-67 % in the >35 Ct-range across the four pathogens. Translating into real-life clinical sensitivity, the Xpert would detect 100 % of all four pathogens, whereas M10 would detect 92.1, 92.4, 84.8 and 94.7 % for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B and RSV. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates improved analytical and clinical performance of Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus compared to STANDARD M10 Flu/RSV/SARS-CoV-2, which is important for ensuring accuracy of diagnosis at all stages of a respiratory infection.

Evaluation of four laboratory-based high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 automated antigen tests compared to RT-PCR on nasal and oropharyngeal samples.

BACKGROUND: The demand for RT-PCR testing has been unprecedented during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Fully automated antigen tests (AAT) are less cumbersome than RT-PCR, but data on performance compared to RT-PCR are scarce. METHODS: The study consists of two parts. A retrospective analytical part, comparing the performance of four different AAT on 100 negative and 204 RT-PCR positive deep oropharyngeal samples divided into four groups based on RT-PCR cycle of quantification levels. In the prospective clinical part, 206 individuals positive for and 199 individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 were sampled from either the anterior nasal cavity (mid-turbinate) or by deep oropharyngeal swabs or both. The performance of AATs was compared to RT-PCR. RESULTS: The overall analytical sensitivity of the AATs differed significantly from 42% (95% CI 35-49) to 60% (95% CI 53-67) with 100% analytical specificity. Clinical sensitivity of the AATs differed significantly from 26% (95% CI 20-32) to 88% (95% CI 84-93) with significant higher sensitivity for mid-turbinate nasal swabs compared to deep oropharyngeal swabs. Clinical specificity varied from 97% to 100%. CONCLUSION: All AATs were highly specific for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Three of the four AATs were significantly more sensitive than the fourth AAT both in terms of analytical and clinical sensitivity. Anatomical test location significantly influenced the clinical sensitivity of AATs.

A nationwide analytical and clinical evaluation of 44 rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in massive testing by Rapid Antigen Tests (RAT) without solid independent data regarding clinical performance being available. Thus, decision on purchase of a specific RAT may rely on manufacturer-provided data and limited peer-reviewed data. METHODS: This study consists of two parts. In the retrospective analytical part, 33 RAT from 25 manufacturers were compared to RT-PCR on 100 negative and 204 positive deep oropharyngeal cavity samples divided into four groups based on RT-PCR Cq levels. In the prospective clinical part, nearly 200 individuals positive for SARS-CoV-2 and nearly 200 individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 by routine RT-PCR testing were retested within 72 h for each of 44 included RAT from 26 manufacturers applying RT-PCR as the reference method. RESULTS: The overall analytical sensitivity differed significantly between the 33 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-4.8) to 42% (95% CI 35-49). All RAT presented analytical specificities of 100%. Likewise, the overall clinical sensitivity varied significantly between the 44 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-4.8) to 94% (95% CI 91-97). All RAT presented clinical specificities between 98 and 100%. CONCLUSION: The study presents analytical as well as clinical performance data for 44 commercially available RAT compared to the same RT-PCR test. The study enables identification of individual RAT that has significantly higher sensitivity than other included RAT and may aid decision makers in selecting between the included RAT. FUNDING: The study was funded by a participant fee for each test and the Danish Regions.

Emergence of a vancomycin-variable Enterococcus faecium ST1421 strain containing a deletion in vanX.

Background: Primary screening for VRE with PCR directed against vanA allowed identification of vanA+ samples from which VRE could not be isolated when selective culture methods were used. From such a sample a vancomycin-susceptible, vanA+ Enterococcus faecium, Efm-V1511, was isolated, when vancomycin selection was not used during culture. Similar isolates with variable susceptibility to vancomycin were obtained in the following months. Objectives: To characterize Efm-V1511 and investigate the causes of variable susceptibility to vancomycin. Methods: All strains were sequenced using Illumina technology. Plasmids containing vanA were reconstructed by scaffolding to known plasmids or plasmids were sequenced using Oxford Nanopore MinION. Derived structures were verified by PCR and sequencing. Furthermore, selected vanA+ vancomycin-susceptible isolates were passaged in the presence of vancomycin and vancomycin-resistant variants obtained were sequenced. Results: Efm-V1511 belonged to ST1421 and contained a 49 696 bp plasmid pHVH-V1511 carrying a Tn1546-derived genetic element. Within this element vanX was truncated by a 252 bp 3' deletion explaining the susceptibility of Efm-V1511. Between March 2016 and April 2017, 48 isolates containing pHVH-V1511 were identified. All were ST1421. In isolates resistant to vancomycin, resistance could be attributed to changes in ddl disrupting gene function sometimes accompanied by changes in vanS, increased pHVH-V1511 copy number or the existence of an additional vanA-containing plasmid encoding a functional vanX. Conclusions: E. faecium carrying pHVH-V1511 is capable of nosocomial transmission and may develop clinical resistance to vancomycin. Strains may not be detected using standard culture methods for VRE.