RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy and analytical sensitivity of the novel Xpert® Mpox (Cepheid®) and STANDARD™ M10 MPX/OPX (SD Biosensor) molecular point-of-care assays for the detection of Mpox virus in skin lesion swabs and upper-respiratory swab samples
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.09.09.24313234
DO 10.1101/2024.09.09.24313234
A1 Romero-Ramirez, Alessandra
A1 Somasundaran, Anushri
A1 Kontogianni, Konstantina
A1 Parkes, Jacob
A1 Hussain, Yusra
A1 Gould, Susan
A1 Williams, Christopher T
A1 Wooding, Dominic
A1 Body, Richard
A1 Hardwick, Hayley E
A1 Kenneth Baillie, J
A1 Dunning, Jake
A1 Semple, Malcom G
A1 ,
A1 ,
A1 Fletcher, Tom E
A1 Edwards, Thomas
A1 Emperador, Devy
A1 Cubas-Atienzar, Ana I
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/10/2024.09.09.24313234.abstract
AB Objectives Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of two point-of-care (POC) molecular diagnostic tests for the detection of monkeypox virus (MPXV): Xpert® Mpox (Cepheid, Inc., USA) and STANDARD™ M10 MPX/OPX (SD Biosensor, Inc., Korea).Methods Diagnostic accuracy of both platforms was evaluated using 53 upper-respiratory swabs (URS) and 32 skin lesions swabs (SS) collected from mpox and COVID-19 patients in the UK against the Sansure (Sansure Biotech Inc.) and the CDC reference qPCR tests. The analytical sensitivity of both platforms was assessed using a viral isolate from the lineage II, B.1.Results The limit of detection was 1×101 pfu/ml for both tests. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the Xpert® Mpox was 97.67% [95% CI 87.71–99.94%] and 88.57% [95% CI 73.26–96.80%] and 97.44% [95% CI 86.52–99.94%] and 74.42% [95% CI 58.83–86.48%] comparing the Sansure and CDC qPCR, respectively and for the M10 MPX/OPX was 87.80% [95% CI 73.80–95.92%] and 76.60% [95% CI 61.97–87.70%] and 94.29% [95% CI 80.84–99.30%] and 86.67% [95% CI 73.21–94.95%] with the Sansure and CDC qPCR.Conclusion The Xpert® Mpox had good diagnostic accuracy for both sample types while the M10 MPX/OPX clinical accuracy was deficient with URS. Our data supports the use of URS during the first 3 days of symptoms onset for mpox diagnosis.HighlightsThe Xpert® Mpox detected Monkeypox virus (MPXV) DNA in more samples than the M10 MPX/OPX, CDC qPCR and Sansure qPCR suggesting higher sensitivity at lower viral loads.Xpert® Mpox fulfilled the performance requirements recommended in the World Health Organisation (WHO) target product profile (TPP) using upper-respiratory swabs (URS) and skin lesion swabs (SS) but M10 MPX/OPX performance was only met when using SS.MPXV DNA was reliably detectable in SS up to 5 days after onset of symptoms. with all PCR testsThe use of URS for mpox diagnosis is not recommended for use more than 3 days after onset of symptoms.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was funded as part of FIND work as coconvener of the diagnostics pillar of the Pandemic Threats Programme. ISARIC4 was funded from the National Institute for Health Research [award CO-CIN-01], the Medical Research Council [grant MC_PC_19059] and by Liverpool Pandemic Institute and the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool in partnership with UK Health Security Agency (UK-HSA), in collaboration with Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the University of Oxford [NIHR award 200907], Wellcome Trust and Department for International Development [215091/Z/18/Z], and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135], and Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre for providing infrastructure support for this research (Grant Reference: C18616/A25153). The FALCON study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Asthma United Kingdom, and the British Lung Foundation. This work is partially funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections (200907), a partnership between the United Kingdom Health Security Agency (UKHSA), The University of Liverpool, The University of Oxford, and LSTM.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:Patients were consented under the WHO ISARIC4 Comprehensive Clinical Characterisation Collaboration Protocol for severe emerging infections [ISRCTN66726260]20, ethical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Service and the Health Research Authority (IRAS ID:126600, REC 13/SC/0149). The COVID-19 samples were collected under the Facilitating AcceLerated Clinical validation Of Novel diagnostics for COVID-1919,23 and ethical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Service and the Health Research Authority (IRAS ID:28422, REC: 20/WA/0169).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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors