Comparison of RT-PCR and antigen test sensitivity across nasopharyngeal, nares, and oropharyngeal swab, and saliva sample types during the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant.

Limited data highlight the need to understand differences in SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant viral load between the gold standard nasopharyngeal (NP) swab, mid-turbinate (MT)/anterior nasal swabs, oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, and saliva. MT, OP, and saliva samples from symptomatic individuals in Atlanta, GA, in January 2022 and longitudinal samples from a small familial cohort were tested by both RT-PCR and ultrasensitive antigen assays. Higher concentrations in the nares were observed in the familial cohort, but a dominant sample type was not found among 39 cases in the cross-sectional cohort. The composite of positive MT or OP assay for both RT-PCR and antigen assay trended toward higher diagnostic yield but did not achieve significant difference. Our data did not identify a singular preferred sample type for SARS-CoV-2 testing, but higher levels of saliva nucleocapsid, a trend toward higher yield of composite OP/MT result, and association of apparent MT or OP predominance with symptoms warrant further study.

Standardization and Comparison of Emergency Use Authorized COVID-19 Assays and Testing Laboratories.

Motivation: The motivation for this work was the need to establish a predefined cutoff based on genome copies per ml (GE/ml) rather than Ct, which can vary depending on the laboratory and assay used. A GE/ml-based threshold was necessary to define what constituted 'low positives" for samples that were included in data sets submitted to the FDA for emergency use approval for SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests. Summary: SARS-CoV-2, the causal agent of the global COVID-19 pandemic, made its appearance at the end of 2019 and is still circulating in the population. The pandemic led to an urgent need for fast, reliable, and widely available testing. After December 2020, the emergence of new variants of SARS-CoV-2 led to additional challenges since new and existing tests had to detect variants to the same extent as the original Wuhan strain. When an antigen-based test is submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) consideration it is benchmarked against PCR comparator assays, which yield cycle threshold (CT) data as an indirect indicator of viral load - the lower the CT, the higher the viral load of the sample and the higher the CT, the lower the viral load. The FDA mandates that 10-20% of clinical samples used to evaluate the antigen test have to be low positive. Low positive, as defined by the FDA, are clinical samples in which the CT of the SARS-CoV-2 target gene is within 3 CT of the mean CT value of the approved comparator test's Limit of Detection (LOD). While all comparator tests are PCR-based, the results from different PCR assays used are not uniform. Results vary depending on assay platform, target gene, LOD and laboratory methodology. The emergence and dominance of the Omicron variant further challenged this approach as the fraction of low positive clinical samples dramatically increased as compared to earlier SARS-CoV-2 variants. This led to 20-40% of clinical samples having high CT values and therefore assays vying for an EUA were failing to achieve the 80% Percent Positive Agreement (PPA) threshold required. Here we describe the methods and statistical analyses used to establish a predefined cutoff, based on genome copies per ml (GE/ml) to classify samples as low positive (less than the cutoff GE/ml) or high positive (greater than the cutoff GE/mL). CT 30 for the E gene target using Cobas® SARS-CoV-2-FluA/B platform performed at TriCore Reference Laboratories, and this low positive cutoff value was used for two EUA authorizations. Using droplet digital PCR and methods described here, a value 49,447.72 was determined as the GE/ml equivalent for the low positive cutoff. The CT cutoff corresponding to 49447.72 GE/ml was determined across other platforms and laboratories. The methodology and statistical analysis described here can now be used for standardization of all comparators used for FDA submissions with a goal towards establishing uniform criteria for EUA authorization.

Rapid, high throughput, automated detection of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies against Wuhan-WT, delta and omicron BA1, BA2 spike trimers.

Traditional cellular and live-virus methods for detection of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) are labor- and time-intensive, and thus not suited for routine use in the clinical lab to predict vaccine efficacy and natural immune protection. Here, we report the development and validation of a rapid, high throughput method for measuring SARS-CoV-2 nAbs against native-like trimeric spike proteins. This assay uses a blockade of human angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (hACE-2) binding (BoAb) approach in an automated digital immunoassay on the Quanterix HD-X platform. BoAb assays using Wuhan-WT (vaccine strain), delta (B.1.167.2), omicron BA1 and BA2 variant viral strains showed strong correlation with cell-based pseudovirus neutralization activity (PNA) and live-virus neutralization activity. Importantly, we were able to detect similar patterns of delta and omicron variant resistance to neutralization in samples with paired vaccine strain and delta variant BoAb measurements. Finally, we screened clinical samples from patients with or without evidence of SARS-CoV-2 exposure by a single-dilution screening version of our assays, finding significant nAb activity only in exposed individuals. Importantly, this completely automated assay can be performed in 4 h to measure neutralizing antibody titers for 16 samples over 8 serial dilutions or, 128 samples at a single dilution with replicates. In principle, these assays offer a rapid, robust, and scalable alternative to time-, skill-, and cost-intensive standard methods for measuring SARS-CoV-2 nAb levels.

Sensitivity of rapid antigen tests against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and Delta variants.

Rapid antigen tests (RATs) have become an invaluable tool for combating the COVID-19 pandemic. However, concerns have been raised regarding the ability of existing RATs to effectively detect emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. We compared the performance of 10 commercially available, emergency use authorized RATs against the Delta and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants using both individual patient and serially diluted pooled clinical samples. The RATs exhibited lower sensitivity for Omicron samples when using PCR cycle threshold (CT) value (a rough proxy for RNA concentration) as the comparator. Interestingly, however, they exhibited similar sensitivity for Omicron and Delta samples when using quantitative antigen concentration as the comparator. We further found that the Omicron samples had lower ratios of antigen to RNA, which offers a potential explanation for the apparent lower sensitivity of RATs for that variant when using C T value as a reference. Our findings underscore the complexity in assessing RAT performance against emerging variants and highlight the need for ongoing evaluation in the face of changing population immunity and virus evolution.

Investigation of Blood Plasma Viral Nucleocapsid Antigen as a Marker of Active Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Omicron Variant Infection.

Background: Nasopharyngeal qualitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the gold standard for diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, but it is not practical or sufficient in every clinical scenario due to its inability to distinguish active from resolved infection. Alternative or adjunct testing may be needed to guide isolation precautions and treatment in patients admitted to the hospital. Methods: We performed a single-center, retrospective analysis of residual clinical specimens and medical record data to examine blood plasma nucleocapsid antigen as a candidate biomarker of active SARS-CoV-2. Adult patients admitted to the hospital or presenting to the emergency department with SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid (RNA) detected by RT-PCR from a nasopharyngeal swab specimen were included. Both nasopharyngeal swab and a paired whole blood sample were required to be available for analysis. Results: Fifty-four patients were included. Eight patients had positive nasopharyngeal swab virus cultures, 7 of whom (87.5%) had concurrent antigenemia. Nineteen (79.2%) of 24 patients with detectable subgenomic RNA and 20 (80.0%) of 25 patients with N2 RT-PCR cycle threshold ≤ 33 had antigenemia. Conclusions: Most individuals with active SARS-CoV-2 infection are likely to have concurrent antigenemia, but there may be some individuals with active infection in whom antigenemia is not detectable. The potential for high sensitivity and convenience of a blood test prompts interest in further investigation as a screening tool to reduce reliance on nasopharyngeal swab sampling and as an adjunct diagnostic test to aid in clinical decision making during the period after acute coronavirus disease 2019.

Sensitivity of Rapid Antigen Tests Against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and Delta Variants.

Rapid Antigen Tests (RAT) have become an invaluable tool for combating the COVID-19 pandemic. However, concerns have been raised regarding the ability of existing RATs to effectively detect emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. We compared the performance of eight commercially available, emergency use authorized RATs against the Delta and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants using individual patient and serially diluted pooled clinical samples. The RATs exhibited lower sensitivity for Omicron samples when using PCR Cycle threshold (C T ) value (a proxy for RNA concentration) as the comparator. Interestingly, however, they exhibited similar sensitivity for Omicron and Delta samples when using quantitative antigen concentration as the comparator. We further found that the Omicron samples had lower ratios of antigen to RNA, which offers a potential explanation for the apparent lower sensitivity of RATs for that variant when using C T value as a reference. Our findings underscore the complexity in assessing RAT performance against emerging variants and highlight the need for ongoing evaluation in the face of changing population immunity and virus evolution.

SARS-CoV-2 reliably detected in frozen saliva samples stored up to one year.

Viability of saliva samples stored for longer than 28 days has not been reported in the literature. The COVID-19 pandemic has spawned new research evaluating various sample types, thus large biobanks have been started. Residual saliva samples from university student surveillance testing were retested on SalivaDirect and compared with original RT-PCR (cycle threshold values) and quantitative antigen values for each month in storage. We conclude that saliva samples stored at -80°C are still viable in detecting SARS-CoV-2 after 12 months of storage, establishing the validity of these samples for future testing.

Where is Omicron? Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and Antigen Test Sensitivity at Commonly Sampled Anatomic Sites Over the Course of Disease.

BACKGROUND: Upper respiratory samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection include the gold standard nasopharyngeal (NP) swab, and mid-turbinate (MT) nasal swabs, oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, and saliva. Following the emergence of the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant, limited preliminary data suggest that OP swabs or saliva samples may be more sensitive than nasal swabs, highlighting the need to understand differences in viral load across different sites. METHODS: MT, OP, and saliva samples were collected from symptomatic individuals presenting for evaluation in Atlanta, GA, in January 2022. Longitudinal samples were collected from a family cohort following COVID-19 exposure to describe detection of viral targets over the course of infection. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 RNA and nucleocapsid antigen measurements demonstrated a nares-predominant phenotype in a familial cohort. A consistent dominant location for SARS-CoV-2 was not found among 54 individuals. Positive percent agreement for virus detection in MT, OP and saliva specimens were 66.7 [54.1-79.2], 82.2 [71.1-93.4], and 72.5 [60.3-84.8] by RT-PCR, respectively, and 46.2 [32.6-59.7], 51.2 [36.2-66.1], and 72.0 [59.6-84.4] by ultrasensitive antigen assay. The composite of positive MT or OP assay was not significantly different than either alone for both RT-PCR and antigen assay (PPA 86.7 [76.7-96.6] and 59.5 [44.7-74.4], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and RNA exhibited similar kinetics and diagnostic yield in three upper respiratory sample types across the duration of symptomatic disease. Collection of OP or combined nasal and OP samples does not appear to increase sensitivity versus validated nasal sampling for rapid detection of viral antigen.