Maximizing the Neisseria gonorrhoeae confirmatory rate and the genotypic detection of ciprofloxacin resistance for samples screened with cobas CT/NG.

Supplementary nucleic acid amplification testing for Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) is widely used to circumvent specificity problems associated with extragenital sites. Here, we compared different supplementary approaches for confirming NG-positive samples from the cobas 4800 CT/NG (c4800) and cobas 6800 CT/NG (c6800) assays using the ResistancePlusGC (RP-GC) assay, which in addition to detecting NG, also predicts ciprofloxacin susceptibility via NG gyrA characterization. Two different nucleic acid extraction techniques were investigated for RP-GC detection; extracts from c4800 (c4800-RP-GC) and MagNA Pure 96 (MP96-RP-GC). NG-positive (n = 300) and -negative (n = 150) samples in cobas PCR media from routine c4800 testing were retrospectively retested with c4800, c6800, c4800-RP-GC, and MP96-RP-GC. Selected samples were also tested with Xpert CT/NG (Xpert) for discrepant analysis. The gyrA status was compared to ETEST ciprofloxacin susceptibility or non-susceptibility for recovered isolates (n = 63). Extragenital confirmatory rates were higher for MP96-RP-GC (131/140; 93.6%) compared to c4800-RP-GC (126/146; 86.3%), albeit not significantly (P = 0.6677). Of 9 samples testing positive by c6800 and negative by MP96-RP-GC, 7/9 (77.8%) were also negative by Xpert. By contrast, the number of samples returning a valid gyrA status was significantly (P = 0.0003) higher for MP96-RP-GC (270/293; 92.2%) compared to c4800-RP-GC (245/298; 82.2%). The overall MP96-RP-GC gyrA status correlated 98.4% (61/62) with the reported ciprofloxacin sensitive (35/36; 97.2%) or non-susceptible (26/26; 100%) phenotype. Improved RP-GC confirmatory rates and reported gyrA status were observed using MP96 nucleic acids compared to c4800 extracts. The data further highlight the ongoing need for NG supplemental testing for oropharyngeal samples.

High-Throughput COVID-19 Testing of Naso-Oropharyngeal Swabs Using a Sensitive Extraction-Free Sample Preparation Method.

High-throughput diagnostic assays are required for large-scale population testing for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The gold standard technique for SARS-CoV-2 detection in nasopharyngeal swab specimens is nucleic acid extraction followed by real-time reverse transcription-PCR. Two high-throughput commercial extraction and detection systems are used routinely in our laboratory: the Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay (cobas) and the Roche MagNA Pure 96 system combined with the SpeeDx PlexPCR SARS-CoV-2 assay (Plex). As an alternative to more costly instrumentation, or tedious sample pooling to increase throughput, we developed a high-throughput extraction-free sample preparation method for naso-oropharyngeal swabs using the PlexPCR SARS-CoV-2 assay (Direct). A collection of SARS-CoV-2-positive (n = 185) and -negative (n = 354) naso-oropharyngeal swabs in transport medium were tested in parallel to compare Plex to Direct. The overall agreement comparing the qualitative outcomes was 99.3%. The mean cycle of quantification (Cq) increase and corresponding mean reduction in viral load for Direct ORF1ab and RdRp compared to Plex was 3.11 Cq (-0.91 log10 IU/mL) and 4.78 Cq (-1.35 log10 IU/mL), respectively. We also compared Direct to a four-sample pool by combining each positive sample (n = 185) with three SARS-CoV-2-negative samples extracted with MagNA Pure 96 and tested with the PlexPCR SARS-CoV-2 assay (Pool). Although less sensitive than Plex or Pool, the Direct method is a sufficiently sensitive and viable approach to increase our throughput by 12,032 results per day. Combining cobas, Plex, and Direct, an overall throughput of 19,364 results can be achieved in a 24-h period. IMPORTANCE Laboratories have experienced extraordinary demand globally for reagents, consumables, and instrumentation, while facing unprecedented testing demand needed for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. A major bottleneck in testing throughput is the purification of viral RNA. Extraction-based methods provide the greatest yield and purity of RNA for downstream PCR. However, these techniques are expensive, time-consuming, and depend on commercial availability of consumables. Extraction-free methods offer an accessible and cost-effective alternative for sample preparation. However, extraction-free methods often lack sensitivity compared to extraction-based methods. We describe a sensitive extraction-free protocol based on a simple purification step using a chelating resin, combined with proteinase K and thermal treatment. We compare the sensitivity qualitatively and quantitatively to a well-known commercial extraction-based system, using a PCR assay calibrated to the 1st WHO international standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. This method entails high throughput and is suitable for all laboratories, particularly in jurisdictions where access to instrumentation and reagents is problematic.

Evaluation of a PlexZyme-Based PCR Assay and Assessment of COVID-19 Surge Testing Throughput Compared to Cobas SARS-CoV-2.

Reliable high-throughput methods are required for the detection of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We evaluated the new research use only (RUO) SpeeDx PlexZyme SARS-CoV-2 components (Plex) compared to the Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay (cobas). A collection of positive (n = 214) and negative samples (n = 201) was tested in parallel comparing Plex with cobas. The overall agreement comparing the qualitative outcomes was 96.9%. Using an in-house quantitative PCR method, correlation comparing Plex ORF1ab to cobas ORF1a was r2 = 0.95. The median Plex ORF1ab change in target copy number compared to cobas ORF1a was +0.48 log10 copies/mL respectively. Inter- and intra-assay reproducibility of each assay was compared, including a limit-of-detection study. Reproducibility was comparable; however cobas was more sensitive than Plex by 1-log dilution. Throughput was evaluated during a COVID-19 testing surge of 4324 samples in a 30-h period. Plex demonstrated less hands-on time per reportable result (19% decrease) and increased throughput (155% increase of 102 results/hour) compared to cobas (40 results/hour). Our study demonstrates good qualitative and quantitative correlation of Plex compared to cobas and that Plex is well-suited for high throughput testing.

Second- and third-generation commercial Neisseria gonorrhoeae screening assays and the ongoing issues of false-positive results and confirmatory testing.

Supplementary nucleic acid amplification tests for Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) are widely used to circumvent specificity problems often associated with extragenital sites. This study was prompted by our observations and concerns from local sexual health physicians over increased discrepancies between Roche cobas 4800 CT/NG (c4800) and our in-house supplementary NG-PCR (NG-duplex) for oropharyngeal samples, when compared with Abbott RealTime CT/NG (m2000) performed prior. Here, we investigated these differences. Three banks of NG-positive samples were used. Bank 1 (n = 344) were screened using m2000. Banks 2 (n = 344) and 3 (n = 400) were screened using c4800. Remnant nucleic acids from all banks were tested using NG-duplex as part of routine testing. Bank 2 samples were further tested using m2000, some selectively tested using Cepheid Xpert CT/NG. Bank 3 samples were further tested using cobas CT/NG (cobas 6800 system). Confirmatory rates were significantly (p < 0.0001) higher for m2000 compared with c4800, with oropharyngeal samples the key difference. However, we also showed that our NG-duplex failed to confirm some true-positive NG samples. Using an expanded gold standard, confirmatory rates for m2000 and c4800 exceeded 90% for all anatomical sites with the exception of c4800 for oropharyngeal specimens at 78%. The observed discrepancies were due to a combination of c4800 producing false-positive results for oropharyngeal samples as well as sensitivity issues related to the NG-duplex assay. The data highlight the ongoing need for NG supplemental nucleic acid testing for oropharyngeal samples but also emphasise the need for careful selection of supplementary methods.