SimplexaTM COVID-19 Direct Assay Research Articles

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

BackgroundDiagnostic 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).MethodsResidual 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 percent of specimens that would be detected by each assay. A 96-sample paired-swab study was conducted to confirm model results.ResultsWhen 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, fit with VTM data, percent positivities for ID NOW with direct nasal specimens (symptomatic 77.8%; asymptomatic 64.5%) and 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.ConclusionsAssay 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.

Saliva Is a Valid Alternative to Nasopharyngeal Swab in Chemiluminescence-Based Assay for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen.

Diagnostic methods based on SARS-CoV-2 antigens detection are a promising alternative to SARS-CoV-2 RNA amplification. We evaluated the automated chemiluminescence-based Lumipulse® G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay on saliva samples, using Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct assay as a reference test. Analytical performance was established on a pool of healthy donors’ saliva samples spiked with the 2019-nCoV/Italy-INMI1 isolate, whereas clinical performance was assessed on fresh saliva specimens collected from hospitalized patients with suspect or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. The limit of detection (LOD) was 0.65 Log TCID50/mL, corresponding to 18,197 copies/mL of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Antigen concentrations and SARS-CoV-2 RNA were highly correlated (r = 0.99; p < 0.0001). Substantial agreement (80.3%) and significant correlation (r = −0.675; p = 0.0006) were observed between Lumipulse® G assay results and Ct values on clinical samples, with 52.4% sensitivity and specificity 94.1%. Sensitivity exceeded 90.0% when calculated on samples with Ct < 25, and specificity was 100% when excluding samples from recovered patients with previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Overall, chemiluminescence-based antigen assay may be reliably applied to saliva samples to identify individuals with high viral loads, more likely to transmit the virus. However, the low positive predictive value in a context of low SARS-CoV-2 prevalence underscores the need for confirmatory testing in SARS-CoV-2 antigen-positive cases.

Frequency and Duration of SARS-CoV-2 Shedding in Oral Fluid Samples Assessed by a Modified Commercial Rapid Molecular Assay.

Background: RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal (NPS)/oropharyngeal swabs is the gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and viral load monitoring. Oral fluid (OF) is an alternate clinical sample, easy and safer to collect and could be useful for COVID-19 diagnosis, monitoring viral load and shedding. Methods: Optimal assay conditions and analytical sensitivity were established for the commercial Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct assay adapted to OF matrix. The assay was used to test 337 OF and NPS specimens collected in parallel from 164 hospitalized patients; 50 bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimens from a subgroup of severe COVID-19 cases were also analysed. Results: Using Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct on OF matrix, 100% analytical detection down to 1 TCID50/mL (corresponding to 4 × 103 copies (cp)/mL) was observed. No crossreaction with other viruses transmitted through the respiratory toute was observed. Parallel testing of 337 OF and NPS samples showed highly concordant results (κ = 0.831; 95 % CI = 0.771–0.891), and high correlation of Ct values (r = 0.921; p < 0.0001). High concordance and elevated correlation was observed also between OF and BAL. Prolonged viral RNA shedding was observed up to 100 days from symptoms onset (DSO), with 32% and 29% positivity observed in OF and NPS samples, respectively, collected between 60 and 100 DSO. Conclusions: Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct assays on OF have high sensitivity and specificity to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA and provide an alternative to NPS for diagnosis and monitoring SARS-CoV-2 shedding.

Evaluation of three commercial assays for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection in upper respiratory tract samples

The increasing COVID-19 widespread has created the necessity to assess the diagnostic accuracy of newly introduced (RT-PCR based) assays for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in respiratory tract samples. We compared the results of the Allplex™ 2019-nCoV assay with those of the Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct assay and the Quanty COVID-19 assay, respectively, all performed on 125 nasal/oropharyngeal swab samples of patients with COVID-19 suspicion. Fifty-four samples were positive, and 71 were negative with the Allplex™ assay, whereas 47 of 54 samples were also positive with the Simplexa™ assay. The Quanty assay detected 55 positive samples, including the 54 positive samples with the Allplex™ assay and 1 sample that was Allplex™ negative but Simplexa™ positive. Using a consensus result criterion as the reference standard allowed to resolve the eight samples with discordant results (one Allplex™ negative and seven Simplexa™ negative) as truly false negative. Interestingly, a Spearman’s negative association was found between the viral RNA loads quantified by the Quanty assay and the CT values of RT PCRs performed with either the Allplex™ assay or the Simplexa™ assay. However, the strength of this association was higher for the Allplex™ assay (N gene, ρ = − 0.92; RdRP gene, ρ = − 0.91) than for the Simplexa™ assay (ORF1ab gene, ρ = − 0.65; S gene, ρ = − 0.80). The Allplex™ 2019-nCoV, the Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct, and the Quanty COVID-19 assays yielded comparable results. However, the role these assays might play in future clinical practice warrants larger comparison studies.

Rapid and sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA using the Simplexa™ COVID-19 direct assay.

So far, one of the major drawbacks of the available molecular assays for the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the need for viral nucleic acid extraction from clinical specimens. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performances of a newly designed real-time RT-PCR (Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct assay), that is established with an all-in-one reagent mix and no separate extraction required. The lower limit of detection (LOD) for both target genes resulted the same: 3.2 (CI: 2.9-3.8) log10 cp/mL and 0.40 (CI: 0.2-1.5) TCID50/mL for S gene while 3.2 log10 (CI: 2.9-3.7) log10 cp/mL and 0.4 (CI: 0.2-1.3) TCID50/mL for ORF1ab. The LOD obtained with extracted viral RNA for both S gene or ORF1ab was 2.7 log10 cp/mL. Crossreactive analysis performed in 20 nasopharyngeal swabs confirmed a 100% of clinical specificity of the assay. Clinical performances of Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct assay were assessed in 278 nasopharyngeal swabs tested in parallel with Corman's method. Concordance analysis showed an "almost perfect" agreement in SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection between the two assays, being κ = 0.938; SE = 0.021; 95% CI = 0.896-0.980. The high sensitivity and specificity of this new assay indicate that it is promising for laboratory diagnosis, enabling highspeed detection in just over one hour, which is significantly faster than the up to five hours currently required by traditional extraction followed by amplification technologies, thus allowing prompt decision making regarding isolation of infected patients.