Clinical Evaluation of the GeneXpert^® Xpert^® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV PLUS Combination Test

Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has lead to an enormous demand for diagnostic testing. To this end, numerous antigen and molecular SARS-CoV-2 rapid tests have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada, including the Cepheid GeneXpert® Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV Combination Test. The GeneXpert and its associated COVID-19 cartridges perform a rapid, fully-automated, and self-contained multiplex RT-qPCR tests with run times of 45 minutes or less (Cepheid Package Insert, 2021). The Xpert SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assay targets two SARS-CoV-2 genomic regions, the envelope (E) and the nucleocapsid (N2) returning a cycle threshold (Ct) value if the target is detected as well as its qualitative result interpretation within 45 amplification cycles. The results for the SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV combination test reports the fluorescence values for both the E and N2 targets of SARS-CoV-2 as a single result as they occupy the same fluorescence channel (Johnson et al., 2021). Additionally, the Xpert SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV combination test is able to detect influenza A, influenza B as well as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and will report their respective Ct values.

As SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern continue to emerge worldwide, Cepheid developed a new formulation of their Xpert SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV combination test, the Xpert SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV PLUS combination test (referred to hereafter as the PLUS Combination Test). The PLUS Combination Test has an additional SARS-CoV-2 target, RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase (RdRp), to help improve assay robustness against novel SARS-CoV-2 variants and redesigned N2 oligos for better coverage of nucleocapsid mutations in circulation that have been shown to cause N gene detection dropout using GeneXpert SARS-CoV-2 assays (Foster et al., 2022; Isabel et al., 2022). RdRp (also known as nsp-12) is the catalytic subunit of multi-subunit polymerase complex which, along with nsp-7 and nsp-8, forms the minimal core components for SARS-CoV-2 RNA synthesis (Peng et al., 2020). To date, there has been no identified RdRp modifications, with this region being considered relatively stable target due to its conserved function (te Velthuis et al., 2009; Pachetti et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2020). RdRp is measured on the same fluorescence channel as targets E and N2, and thus a single Ct value is reported for SARS-CoV-2.

As a rapid near-point-of-care device, the GeneXpert system is currently used as a testing option to improve turnaround times in major health centres, and is used heavily in critical care settings (Jokela et al., 2020; Gotham et al., 2021). Additionally, the GeneXpert has been a reliable tool for decentralized testing in remote and isolated Canadian communities (Respiratory Virus Infections Working Group, 2020) where access to large, well-equipped laboratories is not possible (Berry et al., 2020; Jokela et al., 2020; Gotham et al., 2021; Yau et al., 2021; Rong et al., 2022). It has also been used internationally by the World Health Organization in developing countries during their response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Rakotosamimanana et al., 2020; World Health Organization, 2020).

The individual Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV assays have demonstrated high sensitivity in numerous analytical and clinical studies with company reported sensitivity of 100% (n=35) at 250 copies (cp)/mL for its SARS-CoV-2 assay; independent studies have reported a limit of detection (LOD) ranging from 8.3 – 60 cp/mL (3–4). Indeed, the assay has shown excellent agreement with the Roche Cobas 6800 system (Broder et al., 2020; Goldenberger et al., 2020; Lieberman et al., 2020; Moran et al., 2020; Smithgall et al., 2020; Tham et al., 2021), the Hologic Panther Fusion (Hogan et al., 2020), as well as laboratory-developed RT-qPCR tests (Lieberman et al., 2020; Wolters et al., 2020). A recent systematic review of the Xpert Xpress assay indicated an overall specificity and sensitivity of 97% based on a selection of 11 studies (Goldenberger et al., 2020). As the GeneXpert is present a plethora of settings (including clinics, hospitals, health centres, nursing stations), an independent evaluation of the recently approved PLUS Combination Test ahead of the approaching flu season is essential.

In our study, remnant clinical samples of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A (H3 and H1 2009), influenza B, RSVA, and RSVB were used to evaluate the PLUS Combination Test and compare it to the SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV Combination Test (Johnson et al., 2022). This evaluation was performed in two independent laboratories, the National Microbiology Laboratory (NML; Winnipeg, Canada) and Lakeridge Health Oshawa Hospital (Oshawa, Canada). The SARS-CoV-2 samples used in this study were collected across multiple waves of the pandemic, and included SARS-CoV-2 Alpha, Delta, Omicron BA.1, and Omicron BA.2 variants. Additionally, inactivated SARS-CoV-2 culture from five variants was tested on both assays. No difference was observed between the assays concerning sensitivity, reported Ct value, run time, or specificity.

Materials and Methods

Results

Inactivated gamma-irradiated SARS-CoV-2 culture of five isolates (Wild-Type (WA-1), Alpha (B.1.1.7), Delta (B.1.617.2), Omicron (BA.1), and Omicron (BA.2)) were used to investigate the performance of the PLUS Combination Test against current or previous circulating variants. A panel of five cultured SARS-CoV-2 isolates was tested with the SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV combination test and the PLUS Combination Test (Table 1). All variants were detected with both assays at all dilutions and replicates. Additionally, SARS-CoV-2 positive and SARS-CoV-2 negative clinical samples were tested with both the PLUS Combination Test and SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV combination test (Table 2). The Ct values of SARS-CoV-2 positive samples ranged from 15.6 to 43.5 (Fig. 1; Supplemental Data 1). There was 100% agreement between both assays, with 57 positives and 103 negatives detected (Table 2). There was a high level of correlation between the SARS-CoV-2 Ct values reported with both of the assays (Figure 1; R² = 0.973), with an average standard deviation of 0.49 Ct values between the reported results (Supplemental Data 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Ct value comparisons between the Xpert SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV Combination Test and SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV PLUS Combination Test. Results shown for: A) SARS-CoV-2; B) Respiratory Syncytial Virus; C) Influenza A; and D) Influenza B. Correlation (R²) is calculated for each target.

The above process was repeated for clinical samples containing Influenza A, Influenza B, and RSV. Similarly, results were highly consistent between the PLUS Combination Test and SARS-CoV-2/Influenza/RSV combination test, with overall percent agreements of 100%, 99.4%, and 100% for influenza A, influenza B, and RSV, respectively (Table 3). Regardless of RSV subtype, all RSV positive clinical samples were detected using both assays (Table 3; Supplemental Data 1). Likewise, high correlations were observed between the Ct values reported by both Xpert assays for influenza A (Figure 1; R² = 0.978), influenza B (R² = 0.984), and RSV (R² = 0.975). The correlation for RSV targets was maintained when broken down further by subtype (Supplemental Figure 1). Variance between the Ct values reported by each assay was also low for all targets, with an average Ct value standard deviation of 0.22 for influenza A, 0.24 for influenza B, and 0.36 for RSV (Supplemental Data 1). When RSV was analyzed by subtype, average Ct value standard deviation was greatest for RSVA at 0.72 (n=7), with measured Ct values an average of 1.4 cycles lower with the PLUS Combination Test (Supplemental Figure 1; Supplemental Data 1). The average run time from insertion of the cartridge to its ejection was timed for both the PLUS Combination Test and SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV Combination Test. There was no difference in run time between the two assays, with an average of 36.5 minutes to assay completion (Supplemental Data 1).

Discussion and Conclusion

In an effort to improve assay performance against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants the PLUS Combination Test introduces an additional SARS-CoV-2 target (RdRp), as this region has is unmodified in all circulating variants of concern (te Velthuis et al., 2009; Pachetti et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2020), and has introduced redesigned N2 oligos for better coverage of circulating mutations that caused N gene target dropout (Foster et al., 2022; Isabel et al., 2022). Here, we investigated the performance characteristics of the PLUS Combination Test comparing it to the SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV combination test authorized for use in Canada since January, 2021. This study used a total of 160 clinical samples (including mixtures) that were processed at two independent institutions, of which 110 samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, RSVA, and/or RSVB. There was no observable difference in assay run time, sensitivity, specificity, or reported Ct value between the PLUS Combination Test and SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV combination test – with the possible exception of a slight decrease in RSVA Ct value with the PLUS Combination Test across a small number of samples. Overall, the results between the two assays were nearly identical for all targets, with agreement approaching 100%. The only discordant sample between the two assays was a high-Ct (32.3) Influenza B sample detected only with the SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV Combination Test. This likely reflects detection variability due to the low concentration of the target near its LOD, rather than a difference in performance between the two assays.

This observation was consistent for all variants tested. These results demonstrate that the Ct value for RdRp detection of SARS CoV-2 likely falls at or above the E and N2 targets producing little to no change to the reported Ct value. In conclusion, as the performance characteristics of the tests are nearly identical, the PLUS Combination Test can effectively replace the SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV combination test.