Standardization of SARS-CoV-2 Cycle Threshold Values: Multisite Investigation Evaluating Viral Quantitation across Multiple Commercial COVID-19 Detection Platforms.

The demand for testing during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in the production of several different commercial platforms and laboratory-developed assays for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This has created several challenges, including, but not limited to, the standardization of diagnostic testing, utilization of cycle threshold (CT) values for quantitation and clinical interpretation, and data harmonization. Using reference standards consisting of a linear range of SARS-CoV-2 concentrations quantitated by viral culture-based methods and droplet digital PCR, we investigated the commutability and standardization of SARS-CoV-2 quantitation across different laboratories in the United States. We assessed SARS-CoV-2 CT values generated on multiple reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) platforms and analyzed PCR efficiencies, linearity, gene targets, and CT value agreement. Our results demonstrate the inappropriateness of using SARS-CoV-2 CT values without established standards for viral quantitation. Further, we emphasize the importance of using reference standards and controls validated to independent assays, to compare results across different testing platforms and move toward better harmonization of COVID-19 quantitative test results. IMPORTANCE From the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the demand for SARS-CoV-2 testing has resulted in an explosion of analytical tests with very different approaches and designs. The variability in testing modalities, compounded by the lack of available commercial reference materials for standardization early in the pandemic, has led to several challenges regarding data harmonization for viral quantitation. In this study, we assessed multiple commercially available RT-PCR platforms across different laboratories within the United States using standardized reference materials characterized by viral culture methods and droplet digital PCR. We observed variability in the results generated by different instruments and laboratories, further emphasizing the importance of utilizing validated reference standards for quantitation, to better harmonize SARS-CoV-2 test results.

Evaluation of potential COVID-19 recurrence in patients with late repeat positive SARS-CoV-2 testing.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and reactivation has mostly been described in case reports. We therefore investigated the epidemiology of recurrent COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Among patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 between March 11 and July 31, 2020 within an integrated healthcare system, we identified patients with a recurrent positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay ≥60 days after an initial positive test. To assign an overall likelihood of COVID-19 recurrence, we combined quantitative data from initial and recurrent positive RT-PCR cycle thresholds-a value inversely correlated with viral RNA burden- with a clinical recurrence likelihood assigned based on independent, standardized case review by two physicians. "Probable" or "possible" recurrence by clinical assessment was confirmed as the final recurrence likelihood only if a cycle threshold value obtained ≥60 days after initial testing was lower than its preceding cycle threshold or if the patient had an interval negative RT-PCR. RESULTS: Among 23,176 patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, 1,301 (5.6%) had at least one additional SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCRs assay ≥60 days later. Of 122 testing positive, 114 had sufficient data for evaluation. The median interval to the recurrent positive RT-PCR was 85.5 (IQR 74-107) days. After combining clinical and RT-PCR cycle threshold data, four patients (3.5%) met criteria for probable COVID-19 recurrence. All four exhibited symptoms at recurrence and three required a higher level of medical care compared to their initial diagnosis. After including six additional patients (5.3%) with possible recurrence, recurrence incidence was 4.3 (95% CI 2.1-7.9) cases per 10,000 COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Only 0.04% of all COVID-19 patients in our health system experienced probable or possible recurrence; 90% of repeat positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCRs were not consistent with true recurrence. Our pragmatic approach combining clinical and quantitative RT-PCR data could aid assessment of COVID-19 reinfection or reactivation by clinicians and public health personnel.

Clinical evaluation of the acuitas® AMR gene panel for rapid detection of bacteria and genotypic antibiotic resistance determinants.

Urinary tract infections are leading causes of hospital admissions. Accurate and timely diagnosis is important due to increasing morbidity and mortality from antimicrobial resistance. We evaluated a polymerase chain reaction test (Acuitas AMR Gene Panel with the Acuitas Lighthouse Software) for detection of 5 common uropathogens (Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecalis) and antibiotic resistance genes directly from urine for prediction of phenotypic resistance. Overall percent agreement was 97% for semiquantitative detection of uropathogens versus urine culture using a cut-off of 104 colony forming units per mL urine. Overall accuracy was 91% to 93% for genotypic prediction of common antibiotic resistance harbored by E. coli, K. pneumoniae, and P. mirabilis.