Clinical Evaluation of Three Sample-to-Answer Platforms for Detection of SARS-CoV-2

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has now spread across the globe. As part of the worldwide response, many molecular diagnostic platforms have been granted emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to identify SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Our objective was to evaluate three sample-to-answer molecular diagnostic platforms (Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 [Xpert Xpress], Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 [ID NOW], and GenMark ePlex SARS-CoV-2 Test [ePlex]) to determine analytical sensitivity, clinical performance, and workflow for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs from 108 symptomatic patients. We found that Xpert Xpress had the lowest limit of detection (100% detection at 100 copies/ml), followed by ePlex (100% detection at 1,000 copies/ml), and ID NOW (20,000 copies/ml). Xpert Xpress also had highest positive percent agreement (PPA) compared to our reference standard (98.3%) followed by ePlex (91.4%) and ID NOW (87.7%). All three assays showed 100% negative percent agreement (NPA). In the workflow analysis, ID NOW produced the lowest time to result per specimen (∼17 min) compared to Xpert Xpress (∼46 min) and ePlex (∼1.5 h), but what ID NOW gained in rapid results, it lost in analytical and clinical performance. ePlex had the longest time to results and showed a slight improvement in PPA over ID NOW. Information about the clinical and analytical performance of these assays, as well as workflow, will be critical in making informed and timely decisions on testing platforms.

Related collections

Most cited references 6

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1

Neeltje van Doremalen, Trenton Bushmaker, Dylan H Morris … (2021)

To the Editor: A novel human coronavirus that is now named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (formerly called HCoV-19) emerged in Wuhan, China, in late 2019 and is now causing a pandemic. 1 We analyzed the aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 and compared it with SARS-CoV-1, the most closely related human coronavirus. 2 We evaluated the stability of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on various surfaces and estimated their decay rates using a Bayesian regression model (see the Methods section in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org). SARS-CoV-2 nCoV-WA1-2020 (MN985325.1) and SARS-CoV-1 Tor2 (AY274119.3) were the strains used. Aerosols (<5 μm) containing SARS-CoV-2 (105.25 50% tissue-culture infectious dose [TCID50] per milliliter) or SARS-CoV-1 (106.75-7.00 TCID50 per milliliter) were generated with the use of a three-jet Collison nebulizer and fed into a Goldberg drum to create an aerosolized environment. The inoculum resulted in cycle-threshold values between 20 and 22, similar to those observed in samples obtained from the upper and lower respiratory tract in humans. Our data consisted of 10 experimental conditions involving two viruses (SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1) in five environmental conditions (aerosols, plastic, stainless steel, copper, and cardboard). All experimental measurements are reported as means across three replicates. SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols throughout the duration of our experiment (3 hours), with a reduction in infectious titer from 103.5 to 102.7 TCID50 per liter of air. This reduction was similar to that observed with SARS-CoV-1, from 104.3 to 103.5 TCID50 per milliliter (Figure 1A). SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard, and viable virus was detected up to 72 hours after application to these surfaces (Figure 1A), although the virus titer was greatly reduced (from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter of medium after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). The stability kinetics of SARS-CoV-1 were similar (from 103.4 to 100.7 TCID50 per milliliter after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.6 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). On copper, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 4 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours. On cardboard, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 24 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours (Figure 1A). Both viruses had an exponential decay in virus titer across all experimental conditions, as indicated by a linear decrease in the log10TCID50 per liter of air or milliliter of medium over time (Figure 1B). The half-lives of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 were similar in aerosols, with median estimates of approximately 1.1 to 1.2 hours and 95% credible intervals of 0.64 to 2.64 for SARS-CoV-2 and 0.78 to 2.43 for SARS-CoV-1 (Figure 1C, and Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix). The half-lives of the two viruses were also similar on copper. On cardboard, the half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was longer than that of SARS-CoV-1. The longest viability of both viruses was on stainless steel and plastic; the estimated median half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was approximately 5.6 hours on stainless steel and 6.8 hours on plastic (Figure 1C). Estimated differences in the half-lives of the two viruses were small except for those on cardboard (Figure 1C). Individual replicate data were noticeably “noisier” (i.e., there was more variation in the experiment, resulting in a larger standard error) for cardboard than for other surfaces (Fig. S1 through S5), so we advise caution in interpreting this result. We found that the stability of SARS-CoV-2 was similar to that of SARS-CoV-1 under the experimental circumstances tested. This indicates that differences in the epidemiologic characteristics of these viruses probably arise from other factors, including high viral loads in the upper respiratory tract and the potential for persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 to shed and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. 3,4 Our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is plausible, since the virus can remain viable and infectious in aerosols for hours and on surfaces up to days (depending on the inoculum shed). These findings echo those with SARS-CoV-1, in which these forms of transmission were associated with nosocomial spread and super-spreading events, 5 and they provide information for pandemic mitigation efforts.

0 comments Cited 4143 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus : classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2

Alexander E. Gorbalenya, Susan C. Baker, Ralph Baric … (2020)

The present outbreak of a coronavirus-associated acute respiratory disease called coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is the third documented spillover of an animal coronavirus to humans in only two decades that has resulted in a major epidemic. The Coronaviridae Study Group (CSG) of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, which is responsible for developing the classification of viruses and taxon nomenclature of the family Coronaviridae, has assessed the placement of the human pathogen, tentatively named 2019-nCoV, within the Coronaviridae. Based on phylogeny, taxonomy and established practice, the CSG recognizes this virus as forming a sister clade to the prototype human and bat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses (SARS-CoVs) of the species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, and designates it as SARS-CoV-2. In order to facilitate communication, the CSG proposes to use the following naming convention for individual isolates: SARS-CoV-2/host/location/isolate/date. While the full spectrum of clinical manifestations associated with SARS-CoV-2 infections in humans remains to be determined, the independent zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 highlights the need for studying viruses at the species level to complement research focused on individual pathogenic viruses of immediate significance. This will improve our understanding of virus–host interactions in an ever-changing environment and enhance our preparedness for future outbreaks.

0 comments Cited 3106 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

First Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus in the United States

Michelle Holshue, Chas DeBolt, Scott Lindquist … (2020)

Summary An outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) that began in Wuhan, China, has spread rapidly, with cases now confirmed in multiple countries. We report the first case of 2019-nCoV infection confirmed in the United States and describe the identification, diagnosis, clinical course, and management of the case, including the patient’s initial mild symptoms at presentation with progression to pneumonia on day 9 of illness. This case highlights the importance of close coordination between clinicians and public health authorities at the local, state, and federal levels, as well as the need for rapid dissemination of clinical information related to the care of patients with this emerging infection.

0 comments Cited 2810 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Alexander J. McAdam: Role: Editor

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Clin Microbiol

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J. Clin. Microbiol

Journal ID (hwp): jcm

Journal ID (pmc): jcm

Journal ID (publisher-id): JCM

Title: Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Publisher: American Society for Microbiology (1752 N St., N.W., Washington, DC )

ISSN (Print): 0095-1137

ISSN (Electronic): 1098-660X

Publication date (Electronic preprint): 24 April 2020

Publication date (Electronic): 23 July 2020

Publication date Collection: August 2020

Publication date PMC-release: 23 July 2020

Volume: 58

Issue: 8

Electronic Location Identifier: e00783-20

Affiliations

[a ]Infectious Disease Diagnostics, Northwell Health Laboratories, Lake Success, New York, USA

[b ]Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, East Garden City, New York, USA

Boston Children's Hospital

Author notes

Address correspondence to Gregory J. Berry, gberry1@ 123456northwell.edu .

Wei Zhen and Elizabeth Smith contributed equally to this article. Author name order was determined by a coin toss.

Citation Zhen W, Smith E, Manji R, Schron D, Berry GJ. 2020. Clinical evaluation of three sample-to-answer platforms for detection of SARS-CoV-2. J Clin Microbiol 58:e00783-20. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00783-20.

Article

Publisher ID: 00783-20

DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00783-20

PMC ID: 7383520

PubMed ID: 32332061

SO-VID: 7fa6aaa6-a7f0-48da-bad2-1ea68d12fef0

License:

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

History

Date received : 16 April 2020

Date revision requested : 20 April 2020

Date accepted : 22 April 2020

Page count

Figures: 0, Tables: 4, Equations: 0, References: 12, Pages: 7, Words: 4594

Custom metadata

cover-date August 2020

ScienceOpen disciplines: Microbiology & Virology

Keywords: covid-19,eua,sars-cov-2,molecular diagnostics,nasopharyngeal,near-patient testing

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Microbiology & Virology

Keywords: covid-19, eua, sars-cov-2, molecular diagnostics, nasopharyngeal, near-patient testing

Clinical Evaluation of Three Sample-to-Answer Platforms for Detection of SARS-CoV-2

Read this article at

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Related collections

Novel Coronavirus Disease COVID-19

Most cited references 6

Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1

The species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus : classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2

First Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus in the United States

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Page count

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 260

Cited by 133