RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A Reagent and Virus Benchmarking Panel for a Uniform Analytical Performance Assessment of N Antigen–Based Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.08.03.22278351
DO 10.1101/2022.08.03.22278351
A1 Golden, Allison
A1 Cantera, Jason L.
A1 Lillis, Lorraine
A1 Phan, Thanh T.
A1 Slater, Hannah
A1 Webb, Edwin J.
A1 Peck, Roger B.
A1 Domingo, Gonzalo J.
A1 Boyle, David S.
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/08/06/2022.08.03.22278351.abstract
AB Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) that detect antigen indicative of SARS-CoV-2 infection can help in making quick health care decisions and regularly monitoring groups at risk of infection. With many RDT products entering the market, it is important to rapidly evaluate their relative performance. Comparison of clinical evaluation study results is challenged by protocol design variations and study populations. Laboratory assays were developed to quantify nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S) SARS-CoV-2 antigens. Quantification of the two antigens in nasal eluates confirmed higher abundance of N than S antigen. The median concentration of N antigen was 10 times greater than S per genome equivalent. The N antigen assay was used in combination with quantitative RT-PCR to qualify a panel composed of recombinant antigens, inactivated virus, and clinical specimen pools. This benchmarking panel was applied to evaluate the analytical performance of the SD Biosensor STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag test, Abbott Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test, Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag test, and the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag Test. The four tests displayed different sensitivities toward the different panel members, but all performed best with the clinical specimen pool. The concentration for a 90% probability of detection across the four tests ranged from 21 pg/mL to 102 pg/mL of N antigen in the extracted sample. Benchmarking panels provide a quick way to verify the baseline performance of a diagnostic and enable direct comparison between diagnostic tests.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (https://www.gatesfoundation.org/) via grant INV-016821. The funder did not have any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Rapid diagnostic tests used in this work were either purchased using grant funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, or donated by partners in support of research via grant from Abbott Laboratories and agreements from LumiraDx and the Washington State Department of Health. Donors did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.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:PATH's Research Determination Committee (RDC) gave ethical approval for the work with de-identified human specimens described in the manuscript.I 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 authorsBEIBEI ResourcesBSAbovine serum albuminCDCUS Centers for Disease Control and PreventionCOVID-19coronavirus disease 2019Ctcycle thresholdE. coliEscherichia coliEUAemergency use authorizationEULemergency use licenseGEgenome equivalentLODlimit of detectionLLOQlower limit of quantificationMSDMeso Scale DiscoveryNnucleocapsidNIAIDUS National Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNIHUS National Institutes of HealthPBSphosphate-buffered salineqRT-PCRquantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reactionRDTrapid diagnostic testRT-PCRreverse transcription polymerase chain reactionSspikeSARS-CoV-2severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2TCID5050% tissue culture infective doseULOQupper limit of quantification.