A high-resolution melt curve toolkit to identify lineage-defining SARS-CoV-2 mutations.

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOCs), with mutations linked to increased transmissibility, vaccine escape and virulence, has necessitated the widespread genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2. This has placed a strain on global sequencing capacity, especially in areas lacking the resources for large scale sequencing activities. Here we have developed three separate multiplex high-resolution melting assays to enable the identification of Alpha, Beta, Delta and Omicron VOCs. The assays were evaluated against whole genome sequencing on upper-respiratory swab samples collected during the Alpha, Delta and Omicron [BA.1] waves of the UK pandemic. The sensitivities of the eight individual primer sets were all 100%, and specificity ranged from 94.6 to 100%. The multiplex HRM assays have potential as a tool for high throughput surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 VOCs, particularly in areas with limited genomics facilities

Diagnostic performance of GENEDIA W and ActiveXpress+ COVID-19 antigens tests among symptomatic individuals in Peru and The United Kingdom

Objectives: In order to generate independent performance data regarding accuracy of COVID-19 antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), prospective diagnostic evaluation studies across multiple sites are required to evaluate their performance in different clinical settings. This report describes the clinical evaluation the GENEDIA W COVID-19 Ag Device (Green Cross Medical Science Corp., Chungbuk, Korea) and the ActiveXpress+ COVID-19 Complete Testing Kit (Edinburgh Genetics Ltd, UK), in two testing sites Peru and the United Kingdom. Methods: Nasopharyngeal swabs collected from 456 symptomatic patients at primary points of care in Lima, Peru and 610 symptomatic participants at a COVID-19 Drive-Through testing site in Liverpool, England were analyzed by Ag-RDT and compared to RT-PCR. Analytical evaluation of both Ag-RDTs was assessed using serial dilutions of direct culture supernatant of a clinical SARS-CoV-2 isolate from the B.1.1.7 lineage. Results: For GENEDIA brand, the values of overall sensitivity and specificity were 60.4% [95% CI 52.4–67.9%], and 99.2% [95% CI 97.6–99.7%] respectively; and for Active Xpress+ the overall values of sensitivity and specificity were 66.2% [95% CI 54.0–76.5%], and 99.6% [95% CI 97.9–99.9%] respectively. The analytical limit of detection was determined at 5.0 x 102 pfu/ml what equals to approximately 1.0 x 104 gcn/ml for both Ag-RDTs. The UK cohort had lower median Ct values compared to that of Peru during both evaluations. When split by Ct, both Ag-RDTs had optimum sensitivities at Ct<20 (in Peru; 95% [95% CI 76.4–99.1%] and 100.0% [95% CI 74.1–100.0%] and in the UK; 59.2% [95% CI 44.2–73.0%] and 100.0% [95% CI 15.8–100.0%], for the GENDIA and the ActiveXpress+, respectively). Conclusions: Whilst the overall clinical sensitivity of the Genedia did not meet WHO minimum performance requirements for rapid immunoassays in either cohort, the ActiveXpress+ did so for the small UK cohort. This study illustrates comparative performance of Ag-RDTs across two global settings and considers the different approaches in evaluation methods

Multicenter Diagnostic Evaluation of a Novel Coronavirus Antigen Lateral Flow Test among Symptomatic Individuals in Brazil and the United Kingdom

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the commercialization of many antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), requiring independent evaluations. This report describes the clinical evaluation of the Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCoV Antigen Test (Colloidal Gold) (Beijing Hotgen Biotech Co., Ltd.), at two sites within Brazil and one in the United Kingdom. The collected samples (446 nasal swabs from Brazil and 246 nasopharyngeal samples from the UK) were analyzed by the Ag-RDT and compared to reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). Analytical evaluation of the Ag-RDT was performed using direct culture supernatants of SARS-CoV-2 strains from the wild-type (B.1), Alpha (B.1.1.7), Delta (B.1.617.2), Gamma (P.1), and Omicron (B.1.1.529) lineages. An overall sensitivity and specificity of 88.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 81.3 to 93.3) and 100.0% (95% CI, 99.1 to 100.0), respectively, were obtained for the Brazilian and UK cohorts. The analytical limit of detection was determined as 1.0 × 103 PFU/mL (Alpha), 2.5 × 102 PFU/mL (Delta), 2.5 × 103 PFU/mL (Gamma), and 1.0 × 103 PFU/mL (Omicron), giving a viral copy equivalent of approximately 2.1 × 104 copies/mL, 9.0 × 105 copies/mL, 1.7 × 106 copies/mL, and 1.8 × 105 copies/mL for the Ag-RDT, respectively. Overall, while a higher sensitivity was claimed by the manufacturers than that found in this study, this evaluation finds that the Ag-RDT meets the WHO minimum performance requirements for sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 Ag-RDTs. This study illustrates the comparative performance of the Hotgen Ag-RDT across two global settings and considers the different approaches in evaluation methods. IMPORTANCE Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have witnessed growing numbers of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) being brought to market. In the United Kingdom, this was somewhat controlled indirectly as the government offered free tests from a small number of companies. However, as this has now ceased, individuals are responsible for their own acquisition of test kits. Similarly in Brazil, as of January 2022, pharmacies and other health care retailers are permitted to sell Ag-RDTs directly to the community. Many of these Ag-RDTs have not been externally evaluated, and results are not readily available to the public. Thus, there is now a need for a transparent evaluation of Ag-RDTs with both analytical and clinical evaluation. We present an independent review of the Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCoV Antigen Test (Colloidal Gold) (Beijing Hotgen Biotech Co., Ltd.), at two sites within Brazil and one in the United Kingdom

A high-resolution melt curve toolkit to identify lineage-defining SARS-CoV-2 mutations

Abstract The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOCs), with mutations linked to increased transmissibility, vaccine escape and virulence, has necessitated the widespread genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2. This has placed a strain on global sequencing capacity, especially in areas lacking the resources for large scale sequencing activities. Here we have developed three separate multiplex high resolution melting (HRM) assays to enable the identification of Alpha, Beta, Delta and Omicron VOCs, assay based on HRM analysis, an endpoint RT-qPCR detection method. The assays were evaluated against whole genome sequencing on upper-respiratory swab samples collected at varying points of the UK pandemic. The sensitivities of the eight individual primer sets were all 100%, and specificity ranged from 94.6 to 100%. The multiplex HRM assays have potential as a tool for high throughput surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 VOCs, particularly in areas with limited genomics facilities.</jats:p

A prospective diagnostic evaluation of accuracy of self-taken and healthcare worker-taken swabs for rapid COVID-19 testing

Background Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) developed for point of care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen are recommended by WHO to use trained health care workers to collect samples. We hypothesised that self-taken samples are non-inferior for use with RDTs to diagnose COVID-19. We designed a prospective diagnostic evaluation comparing self-taken and healthcare worker (HCW)-taken throat/nasal swabs to perform RDTs for SARS-CoV-2, and how these compare to RT-PCR. Methods Eligible participants 18 years or older with symptoms of COVID-19. 250 participants recruited at the NHS Test and Trace drive-through community PCR testing site (Liverpool, UK); one withdrew before analysis. Self-administered throat/nasal swab for the Covios® RDT, a trained HCW taken throat/nasal sample for PCR and HCW comparison throat/nasal swab for RDT were collected. RDT results were compared to RT-PCR, as the reference standard, to calculate sensitivity and specificity. Findings Seventy-five participants (75/249, 30.1%) were positive by RT-PCR. RDTs with self-taken swabs had a sensitivity of 90.5% (67/74, 95% CI: 83.9–97.2), compared to 78.4% (58/74, 95% CI: 69.0–87.8) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 12.2%, 95% CI: 4.7–19.6, p = 0.003). Specificity for self-taken swabs was 99.4% (173/174, 95% CI: 98.3–100.0), versus 98.9% (172/174, 95% CI: 97.3–100.0) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 0.6%, 95% CI: 0.5–1.7, p = 0.317). The PPV of self-taken RDTs (98.5%, 67/68, 95% CI: 95.7–100.0) and HCW-taken RDTs (96.7%, 58/60, 95% CI 92.1–100.0) were not significantly different (p = 0.262). However, the NPV of self-taken swab RDTs was significantly higher (96.1%, 173/180, 95% CI: 93.2–98.9) than HCW-taken RDTs (91.5%, 172/188, 95% CI 87.5–95.5, p = 0.003). Interpretation In conclusion, self-taken swabs for COVID-19 testing offer an accurate alternative to healthcare worker taken swabs for use with RDTs. Our results demonstrate that, with no training, self-taken throat/nasal samples can be used by lay individuals as part of rapid testing programmes for symptomatic adults. This is especially important where the lack of trained healthcare workers restricts access to testing