PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Achenbach, Chad J AU - Caputo, Matthew AU - Hawkins, Claudia AU - Balmert, Lauren C AU - Qi, Chao AU - Odorisio, Joseph AU - Dembele, Etienne AU - Jackson, Alema AU - Abbas, Hiba AU - Frediani, Jennifer K AU - Levy, Joshua M AU - Rebolledo, Paulina A. AU - Kempker, Russell R. AU - Esper, Annette M. AU - Lam, Wilbur A. AU - Martin, Greg S. AU - Murphy, Robert L TI - Clinical evaluation of the Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH): a point-of-care PCR test for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection AID - 10.1101/2022.01.24.22269785 DP - 2022 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2022.01.24.22269785 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.24.22269785.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.24.22269785.full AB - Background Rapid and accurate testing for SARS-CoV-2 is an essential tool in the medical and public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. An ideal test for COVID-19 would combine the sensitivity of laboratory-based PCR combined with the speed and ease of use of point-of-care (POC) or home-based rapid antigen testing.Methods To evaluate the performance of the Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH) SARS-CoV-2 POC PCR (sample insertion to result time of 16 minutes), we conducted a cross-sectional study of adults with and without symptoms of COVID-19 at four clinical sites. We collected two bilateral anterior nasal swabs from each participant and information on COVID-19 symptoms, vaccination, and exposure. One swab was tested with the DASH SARS-CoV-2 POC PCR and the second in a central laboratory using Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 PCR. We assessed test concordance and calculated sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values using Xpert as the “gold standard.”Results We enrolled 315 and analyzed 313 participants with median age 42 years; 65% were female, 62% symptomatic, 75% had received ≥2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and 16% currently COVID-19 positive. There were concordant results for 307 tests indicating an overall agreement for DASH of 0.98 [95% CI 0.96, 0.99] compared to Xpert. DASH performed at 0.96 [95% CI 0.86, 1.00] sensitivity and 0.98 [95% CI 0.96, 1.00] specificity, with a positive predictive value of 0.85 [95% CI 0.73, 0.96] and negative predictive value of 0.996 [95% CI 0.99, 1.00]. The six discordant tests between DASH and Xpert all had high Ct values (>30) on the respective positive assay. DASH and Xpert Ct values were highly correlated (R=0.89 [95% CI 0.81, 0.94]).Conclusions DASH POC SARS-CoV-2 PCR was accurate, easy to use, and provided fast results in real-life clinical settings with an overall performance similar to an EUA-approved laboratory-based PCR. Its compact design and ease of use are optimal for a variety of healthcare, and potentially community settings, including areas with lack of access to central laboratory-based PCR testing.Summary DASH is an accurate, easy to use, and fast point-of-care test with applications for diagnosis and screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNational Institutes for Health (NIH)/National Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB)(U54EB027049-02S1 and U54EB027690)Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Northwestern University Institutional Review BoardI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.