Predicting Direct-Specimen SARS-CoV-2 Assay Performance Using Residual Patient Samples

4Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Diagnostic sensitivities of point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 assays depend on specimen type and population-specific viral loads. Evaluation of these assays require "direct"specimens from paired-swab studies rather than more accessible residual specimens in viral transport media (VTM). Methods: Residual VTM and limit-of-detection studies were conducted on Abbott ID NOW™ COVID-19, Quidel Sofia 2™ SARS Antigen FIA, and DiaSorin Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct assays, with cycle threshold (CT) adjustments to approximate direct-specimen testing based on gene-Target doubling each PCR cycle. Logistic regression was used to model assay performance by specimen CT. These models were applied to CT distributions of symptomatic and asymptomatic populations presenting to emergency services to predict the percentage of specimens that would be detected by each assay. A 96-sample paired-swab study was conducted to confirm model results. Results: When using direct nasopharyngeal samples and fit with either VTM or limit-of-detection data, percent positivities for ID NOW (symptomatic 94.9%/97.4%; asymptomatic 88.4.0%/89.6%) and Simplexa (symptomatic 97.8%/97.2%; asymptomatic 91.1%/90.8%) were predicted to be similar. Likewise, percent positivities for ID NOW with direct nasal specimens (symptomatic 77.8%; asymptomatic 64.5%) and, fit with VTM data, Sofia 2 with direct nasopharyngeal specimens (symptomatic 76.6%, asymptomatic 60.3%) were similar. The paired-swab study comparing direct nasopharyngeal specimens on ID NOW and nasopharyngeal VTM specimens on Simplexa showed 99% concordance. Conclusions: Assay performance can be modeled as dependent on viral load, fit using laboratory bench study results, and adjusted to account for direct-specimen testing. When using nasopharyngeal specimens, direct testing on Abbott ID NOW and VTM testing on DiaSorin Simplexa have similar performance.

References Powered by Scopus

Viral RNA load as determined by cell culture as a management tool for discharge of SARS-CoV-2 patients from infectious disease wards

657Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Performance of abbott id now covid-19 rapid nucleic acid amplification test using nasopharyngeal swabs transported in viral transport media and dry nasal swabs in a New York city academic institution

183Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Comparison of abbott id now and abbott m2000 methods for the detection of sars-cov-2 from nasopharyngeal and nasal swabs from symptomatic patients

136Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

A Reagent and Virus Benchmarking Panel for a Uniform Analytical Performance Assessment of N Antigen-Based Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19

3Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Application of Abbott ID NOW in the emergency department for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A medical center's perspective

1Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test using SERS-based lateral flow immunoassay

0Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Schroeder, L. F., Bachman, M. A., Idoni, A., Gegenheimer-Holmes, J., Kronick, S. L., Valdez, R., & Lephart, P. R. (2022). Predicting Direct-Specimen SARS-CoV-2 Assay Performance Using Residual Patient Samples. Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine, 7(3), 661–673. https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfab159

Readers over time

‘21‘22‘23‘24036912

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 2

40%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

20%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

20%

Researcher 1

20%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 4

80%

Nursing and Health Professions 1

20%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0