Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

13 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

A Study of Analytical and Clinical Sensitivity of Aptima SARS-CoV-2 Assay (Hologic) and Proposals of Complementary Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Low Viral Load Specimens.

ABSTRACT: Early and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 is important for diagnosis and transmission control. The use of high-throughput and automated testing allows laboratories to better deliver diagnostic testing given manpower and resource limitations. We validated the clinical and analytical performance of the Hologic Panther Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay with an emphasis on detection of specimens with low viral loads. The clinical performance was evaluated using 245 clinical specimens, against a comparator PCR-based laboratory developed test (LDT). The analytical performance was determined by replicate testing of contrived samples in a ten-fold dilution series (CT values 32-42, based on LDT). The Aptima assay had 96.7% overall percent agreement, 100% negative percent agreement and 88.1% positive percent agreement. It was able to consistently detect SARS-CoV-2 in contrived samples with CT = 32 by LDT (calculated 2354 copies/mL). The 95% limit of detection of the Aptima assay was estimated to be at LDT CT = 33 (equivalent to 870 copies/mL). The relative light units (RLU) × 1000 for 52 true positive clinical specimens was 962.2 ± 181.5, and that for the 186 true negative specimens was 264.6 ± 14.3. The Aptima assay was a reliable method with a high overall percent agreement against our comparator LDT. We propose that samples reported as negative by the Aptima assay with RLU > 350 be tested by a secondary method, in order to improve detection of samples with very low viral loads.

SUBMITTER: La MV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8669225 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Evaluation of the Aptima™ transcription-mediated amplification assay (Hologic®) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in clinical specimens.

Project description:BackgroundThe spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which appeared in late 2019, has been limited by isolating infected individuals. However, identifying such individuals requires accurate diagnostic tools.ObjectiveThis study evaluates the capacity of the Aptima™ Transcription-Mediated Amplification (TMA) assay (Hologic® Panther System) to detect the virus in clinical samples.Study designWe compared the Aptima™ assay to two in-house real-time RT-PCR techniques, one running on the Panther Fusion™ module and the other on the MagNA Pure 96 and Light-Cycler 480 instruments. We included a total of 200 respiratory specimens: 100 tested prospectively and 100 retrospectively (25 -ve/75 +ve).ResultsThe final Cohen's kappa coefficients were: κ = 0.978 between the Aptima™ and Panther Fusion™ assays, κ = 0.945 between the Aptima™ and MagNA/LC480 assays and κ = 0.956 between the MagNA/LC480 and Panther Fusion™ assays.ConclusionThese findings indicate that the Aptima™ SARS-CoV-2 TMA assay data agree well with those obtained with our routine methods and that this assay can be used to diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

| S-EPMC7336924 | biostudies-literature

Analytical validation of quantitative SARS-CoV-2 subgenomic and viral load laboratory developed tests conducted on the Panther Fusion® (Hologic) with preliminary application to clinical samples.

Project description:ObjectiveValidate the performance characteristics of two analyte specific, laboratory developed tests (LDTs) for the quantification of SARS-CoV-2 subgenomic RNA (sgRNA) and viral load on the Hologic Panther Fusion® using the Open Access functionality.MethodsCustom-designed primers/probe sets targeting the SARS-CoV-2 Envelope gene (E) and subgenomic E were optimized. A 20-day performance validation following laboratory developed test requirements was conducted to assess assay precision, accuracy, analytical sensitivity/specificity, lower limit of detection and reportable range.ResultsQuantitative SARS-CoV-2 sgRNA (LDT-Quant sgRNA) assay, which measures intermediates of replication, and viral load (LDT-Quant VLCoV) assay demonstrated acceptable performance. Both assays were linear with an R2 and slope equal to 0.99 and 1.00, respectively. Assay precision was evaluated between 4-6 Log10 with a maximum CV of 2.6% and 2.5% for LDT-Quant sgRNA and LDT-Quant VLCoV respectively. Using negative or positive SARS-CoV-2 human nasopharyngeal swab samples, both assays were accurate (kappa coefficient of 1.00 and 0.92). Common respiratory flora and other viral pathogens were not detected and did not interfere with the detection or quantification by either assay. Based on 95% detection, the assay LLODs were 729 and 1206 Copies/mL for the sgRNA and VL load LDTs, respectively.ConclusionThe LDT-Quant sgRNA and LDT-Quant VLCoV demonstrated good analytical performance. These assays could be further investigated as alternative monitoring assays for viral replication; and thus, medical management in clinical settings which could inform isolation/quarantine requirements.

| S-EPMC10309597 | biostudies-literature

Clinical Performance and Analytical Sensitivity of Three SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Diagnostic Tests.

Project description:Hundreds of RT-qPCR kits are available in the market for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, some of them with emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food Drug Administration (FDA) or their country of origin agency, but also many of them without any independent clinical performance evaluation. We performed a clinical evaluation for two Chinese SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR kits available in South America, COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Test Kit (eDiagnosis Biomedicine, Wuhan, China) and 2019-nCoV Nucleic Acid Diagnostic Kit (Sansure Biotech, Changsha, China), for RT-qPCR SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using the FDA EUA 2019-nCoV CDC kit (IDT, Coralville, IA) as gold standard. We found an excellent clinical performance and analytical sensitivity for both kits with sensitivity values of 100% and 95.3% and estimated limit of detection of 500 copies/mL and 1,000 copies/mL, for eDiagnosis and Sansure Biotech kits, respectively. COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Test Kit (eDiagnosis) and 2019-nCoV Nucleic Acid Diagnostic Kit (Sansure Biotech) are both made in China and hold EUA by the Chinese CDC. Also, Sansure Biotech kit has EUA by the FDA. In conclusion, our results endorse the use of these two commercially available kits imported to Ecuador for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, as they had the similar clinical performance as the gold standard from the CDC.

| S-EPMC8045661 | biostudies-literature

ddPCR: a more accurate tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection in low viral load specimens.

Project description:Quantitative real time PCR (RT-PCR) is widely used as the gold standard for clinical detection of SARS-CoV-2. However, due to the low viral load specimens and the limitations of RT-PCR, significant numbers of false negative reports are inevitable, which results in failure to timely diagnose, cut off transmission, and assess discharge criteria. To improve this situation, an optimized droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) was used for detection of SARS-CoV-2, which showed that the limit of detection of ddPCR is significantly lower than that of RT-PCR. We further explored the feasibility of ddPCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA from 77 patients, and compared with RT-PCR in terms of the diagnostic accuracy based on the results of follow-up survey. 26 patients of COVID-19 with negative RT-PCR reports were reported as positive by ddPCR. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and accuracy were improved from 40% (95% CI: 27-55%), 100% (95% CI: 54-100%), 100%, 16% (95% CI: 13-19%), 0.6 (95% CI: 0.48-0.75) and 47% (95% CI: 33-60%) for RT-PCR to 94% (95% CI: 83-99%), 100% (95% CI: 48-100%), 100%, 63% (95% CI: 36-83%), 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02-0.18), and 95% (95% CI: 84-99%) for ddPCR, respectively. Moreover, 6/14 (42.9%) convalescents were detected as positive by ddPCR at 5-12 days post discharge. Overall, ddPCR shows superiority for clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 to reduce the false negative reports, which could be a powerful complement to the RT-PCR.

| S-EPMC7448897 | biostudies-literature

Accurate Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by Next-Generation Sequencing in Low Viral Load Specimens.

Project description:As new SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge, there is an urgent need to increase the efficiency and availability of viral genome sequencing, notably to detect the lineage in samples with a low viral load. SARS-CoV-2 genome next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed retrospectively in a single center on 175 positive samples from individuals. An automated workflow used the Ion AmpliSeq SARS-CoV-2 Insight Research Assay on the Genexus Sequencer. All samples were collected in the metropolitan area of the city of Nice (France) over a period of 32 weeks (from 19 July 2021 to 11 February 2022). In total, 76% of cases were identified with a low viral load (Ct ≥ 32, and ≤200 copies/µL). The NGS analysis was successful in 91% of cases, among which 57% of cases harbored the Delta variant, and 34% the Omicron BA.1.1 variant. Only 9% of cases had unreadable sequences. There was no significant difference in the viral load in patients infected with the Omicron variant compared to the Delta variant (Ct values, p = 0.0507; copy number, p = 0.252). We show that the NGS analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 genome provides reliable detection of the Delta and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants in low viral load samples.

| S-EPMC9964843 | biostudies-literature

Analytical and Clinical Comparison of Three Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection.

Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in December 2019 and has quickly become a worldwide pandemic. In response, many diagnostic manufacturers have developed molecular assays for SARS-CoV-2 under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) pathway. This study compared three of these assays, the Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay (Fusion), the Hologic Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay (Aptima), and the BioFire Defense COVID-19 test (BioFire), to determine analytical and clinical performance as well as workflow. All three assays showed similar limits of detection (LODs) using inactivated virus, with 100% detection, ranging from 500 to 1,000 genome equivalents/ml, whereas use of a quantified RNA transcript standard showed the same trend but had values ranging from 62.5 to 125 copies/ml, confirming variability in absolute quantification of reference standards. The clinical correlation found that the Fusion and BioFire assays had a positive percent agreement (PPA) of 98.7%, followed by the Aptima assay at 94.7%, compared to the consensus result. All three assays exhibited 100% negative percent agreement (NPA). Analysis of discordant results revealed that all four samples missed by the Aptima assay had cycle threshold (Ct ) values of >37 by the Fusion assay. In conclusion, while all three assays showed similar relative LODs, we showed differences in absolute LODs depending on which standard was employed. In addition, the Fusion and BioFire assays showed better clinical performance, while the Aptima assay showed a modest decrease in overall PPA. These findings should be kept in mind when making platform testing decisions.

| S-EPMC7448672 | biostudies-literature

Comparison between Aptima Assays (Hologic) and the Allplex STI Essential Assay (Seegene) for the diagnosis of Sexually transmitted infections.

Project description:Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) remain a worldwide problem and a severe threat to public health. The purpose of this study was to compare Aptima® Assays (Hologic®) and the Allplex™ STI Essential Assay (Seegene®) for the simultaneous detection of Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Trichomonas vaginalis and Mycoplasma genitalium in clinical practice. The Aptima® assays (Hologic®) are based on a transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) method. The Allplex™ STI Essential assay (Seegene®) is based on a multiplex Real-Time PCR (RT-PCR) method. A total of 622 clinical samples from different anatomical sites were tested using both methods. A total of 88 (14.1%) and 66 (10.6%) positive samples were found for any of the TMA assays used and for the RT-PCR assay, respectively. Aptima® assays showed a slightly higher rate of positive results for all pathogens except for T. vaginalis, the results of which were similar to those obtained with Allplex™. The most commonly detected pathogen was C. trachomatis (37 samples; 5.9% using TMA assays) and the anatomical site with the highest prevalence of microorganisms was a non-urogenital site, the pharynx (27 positive samples; 4.3%). Using the Aptima® assays as reference method, the comparison showed that the average specificity of multiplex RT-PCR was 100.0% for the four pathogens. However an average sensitivity of 74.5% was observed, showing 95.2% (CI95%; 93.6-96.9) of overall concordance (? = 0.80). In conclusion, the Aptima® assays show a higher sensitivity on a wide range of sample types compared to the Allplex™ assay.

| S-EPMC6742210 | biostudies-literature

Evaluation of automated molecular tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in pooled nasopharyngeal and saliva specimens.

Project description:BackgroundPooling of samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing in low-prevalence settings has been used as an effective strategy to expand testing capacity and mitigate challenges with the shortage of supplies. We evaluated two automated molecular test systems for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in pooled specimens.MethodsPooled nasopharyngeal and saliva specimens were tested by Qiagen QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel (QIAstat) or Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert), and the results were compared to that of standard RT-qPCR tests without pooling.ResultsIn nasopharyngeal specimens, the sensitivity/specificity of the pool testing approach, with 5 and 10 specimens per pool, were 77%/100% (n = 105) and 74.1%/100% (n = 260) by QIAstat, and 97.1%/100% (n = 250) and 100%/99.5% (n = 200) by Xpert, respectively. Pool testing of saliva (10 specimens per pool; n = 150) by Xpert resulted in 87.5% sensitivity and 99.3% specificity compared to individual tests. Pool size of 5 or 10 specimens did not significantly affect the difference of RT-qPCR cycle threshold (CT ) from standard testing. RT-qPCR CT values obtained with pool testing by both QIAstat and Xpert were positively correlated with that of individual testing (Pearson's correlation coefficient r = 0.85 to 0.99, p < 0.05). However, the CT values from Xpert were significantly stronger (p < 0.01, paired t test) than that of QIAstat in a subset of SARS-CoV-2 positive specimens, with mean differences of -4.3 ± 2.43 and -4.6 ± 2 for individual and pooled tests, respectively.ConclusionOur results suggest that Xpert SARS-CoV-2 can be utilized for pooled sample testing for COVID-19 screening in low-prevalence settings providing significant cost savings and improving throughput without affecting test quality.

| S-EPMC8373324 | biostudies-literature

Quantification of SARS‐CoV‐2 viral load in patients using time‐to‐results in antigen lateral flow tests

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC10839128 | biostudies-literature

A nationwide analytical and clinical evaluation of 44 rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR.

Project description:BackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in massive testing by Rapid Antigen Tests (RAT) without solid independent data regarding clinical performance being available. Thus, decision on purchase of a specific RAT may rely on manufacturer-provided data and limited peer-reviewed data.MethodsThis study consists of two parts. In the retrospective analytical part, 33 RAT from 25 manufacturers were compared to RT-PCR on 100 negative and 204 positive deep oropharyngeal cavity samples divided into four groups based on RT-PCR Cq levels. In the prospective clinical part, nearly 200 individuals positive for SARS-CoV-2 and nearly 200 individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 by routine RT-PCR testing were retested within 72 h for each of 44 included RAT from 26 manufacturers applying RT-PCR as the reference method.ResultsThe overall analytical sensitivity differed significantly between the 33 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-4.8) to 42% (95% CI 35-49). All RAT presented analytical specificities of 100%. Likewise, the overall clinical sensitivity varied significantly between the 44 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-4.8) to 94% (95% CI 91-97). All RAT presented clinical specificities between 98 and 100%.ConclusionThe study presents analytical as well as clinical performance data for 44 commercially available RAT compared to the same RT-PCR test. The study enables identification of individual RAT that has significantly higher sensitivity than other included RAT and may aid decision makers in selecting between the included RAT.FundingThe study was funded by a participant fee for each test and the Danish Regions.

| S-EPMC9173826 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data