Literature DB >> 32823131

Evaluation on testing of deep throat saliva and lower respiratory tract specimens with Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay.

River Chun-Wai Wong1, Ann Han Wong2, Yolanda Iok-Ieng Ho2, Eddie Chi-Man Leung2, Raymond Wai-Man Lai2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay is only validated on nasopharyngeal specimens for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Other specimen types such as deep throat saliva (DTS), also known as posterior oropharyngeal saliva and lower-respiratorytract specimens (LRT) including sputum, tracheal aspirate and bronchoalveolar lavage are not validated. These non-validated specimen types, however, do have significant diagnostic value.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the performance of Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 from DTS and LRT specimens.
METHODS: 162 specimens from 158 patients with suspected COVID-19 disease were tested with Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay. These included 120 DTS and 42 LRT specimens i.e. 35 sputum, 6 tracheal aspirate and one bronchoalveolar lavage. Results were compared to those by the TIB-Molbiol LightMix® SarbecoV E-gene assay.
RESULTS: Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay has satisfactory performance when compared with reference method. The positive percent agreement (PPA) of DTS and LRT specimens were 98.86 % & 100 % respectively while the negative percent agreement (NPA) was 100 % for both DTS and LRT specimens.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated with appropriate sample pre-treatment, Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay can be used to test on non-validated specimen types including DTS & LRT specimens.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Deep throat saliva; Lower respiratory tract specimens; Non-validated specimen types; SARS-CoV-2; Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32823131      PMCID: PMC7429071          DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104593

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Virol        ISSN: 1386-6532            Impact factor:   3.168


Introduction

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) is a novel coronavirus responsible for cluster of atypical pneumonia outbreak in Wuhan, China in December of 2019. With its spread globally, World health Organization (WHO) declared pandemic of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in March 2020. It is crucial to confine the spread of COVID-19 in densely populated cities like Hong Kong as outbreak will potentially overwhelm the healthcare system. Provision of diagnostic test for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 is the mainstay for early diagnosis, prompt implementation of infection control measures and epidemiological tracking in both hospital setting and community. Nasopharyngeal specimens are recommended by WHO for detection of SARS‐CoV‐2. Collection of nasopharyngeal samples require trained personnel wearing full personal protective equipment and conduct in airborne isolation facility to minimize the risk of disease transmission. Previous studies have shown that deep throat saliva (DTS) can be considered as an alternative specimen for detection of SARS-CoV-2 [[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]]. Lower-Respiratory-Tract (LRT) specimens including sputum, tracheal aspirate and bronchoalveolar lavage are considered better than upper respiratory tract specimens for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in patients with lower respiratory symptoms [6]. However, most commercial assays including Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay (Cepheid, Sunnyale, CA, USA) have not been validated for sample types other than nasopharyngeal specimens. Mucus and high viscosity of DTS and LRT specimens render them difficult to be processed by automated sample-to-answer platform. Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay is a fully automated in vitro diagnostic test performed on GeneXpert platform (Cepheid, Sunnyale, CA, USA). Two targets are included: envelope gene (E gene) and nucleocapsid gene (N2 gene). Results will be interpreted as positive if both targets or N2 gene alone are detected while if E gene alone was detected, result will be interpreted as presumptive positive. Recently, approval for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) has been granted by Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Previous studies shown that it has satisfactory performance in detection of SARS-CoV-2 [[6], [7], [8], [9]]. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the performance of Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 from DTS and LRT specimens with sample pre-treatment before testing.

Methods

Study design

A total of 162 samples (119 positive and 43 negative specimens) collected from 158 patients with suspected COVID-19 were tested. These included 120 DTS and 42 LRT i.e. 35 sputum, 6 tracheal aspirate and one bronchoalveolar lavage. The median age of patients was 46 (Interquartile Range (IQR) of 35 (28–63)) with 56.3 % (89/158) was female. Among them, 58.9 % (93/158) were from Accident & Emergency Department (AED), 29.7 % (47/158) were in-patients and 11.4 % (18/158) were out-patients. Out of the 162 samples, 74 of them were archived samples kept frozen at -70℃ and the remaining samples (n = 88) were prospective samples. Upon receipt, all samples were screened with our standard-of-care (SOC) nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) which is the TIB-Molbiol LightMix® SarbecoV E-gene assay (formerly named as Modular SARS and Wuhan CoV E-gene, Berlin, Germany) as published previously [2]. All positive cases were confirmed by the reference laboratory of Hong Kong (Public Health Laboratory Service Branch, PHLSB).

Sample collection and selection

Both DTS and LRT specimens were collected in plain sterile container, transported to laboratory on the same day and tested promptly. The 119 samples tested positive by the SOC NAAT span the entire range of cycle threshold (Ct) scores with Ct value ranged from 11 to 38 (in which 26 % with Ct <20, 50 % with Ct 20–30 and 24 % with Ct >30).

Sample preparation and test procedures

DTS specimens

Sterile Phosphate-Buffered Saline (PBS) (pH 7.2–7.4) was added into neat saliva specimens in the ratio of 1:1. Sample was then vortexed for homogenization and allowed to settle for 5−10 min. Two mL of the homogenized sample was transferred to another vial for centrifugation at 2000 g for 5 min.

LRT specimens

One mL of the specimen was added to 3 mL of in-house prepared Maintenance Medium (MM) (10X Minimum Essential Medium (MEM), 200 mM glutamine, 1 M HEPES, 7.5 % NaHCO3, 12 mg gentamicin, 0.5 mg amphotericin B, 10,000 units penicillin, 10 mg streptomycin, pH 7.1–7.4) and the mixture was emulsified by pipetting up and down, followed by centrifugation at 2000 g for 5 min. For each sample, supernatant was used for testing with both the SOC NAAT and Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay according to manufacturer’s instruction. Samples were loaded on GeneXpert Dx system with running time around 45 min.

Statistical analysis

Agreement statistics in comparison with SOC NAAT was applied. PPA, NPA and Weighted Kappa were determined by Inter-rater agreement and diagnostic test (2 × 2 table) by using MedCalc 19.4.1 (Ostend, Belgium). Values for Cohen's Kappa coefficient (κ) of <0.20, 0.21–0.40, 0.41–0.60, 0.61–0.80 and 0.81–1.00 were characterized as poor, fair, moderate, good and very good agreement respectively.

Results

Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay has very good agreement with SOC NAAT. The weighted Kappa values were 0.98 and 1.00 for DTS and LRT specimens. The overall performance on both non-validated specimen types has weighted Kappa value 0.98, PPA of 99.16 % and NPA of 100 % (Table 1 ). Discrepancy was only observed in one archived DTS specimen (Table 1).
Table 1

Overall agreements between Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay and reference method among 162 deep throat saliva and lower–respiratory-tract specimens for detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Sampletype Reference method
(95 % CI)
SOC NAAT
Xpert XpressDetectedNot detectedKappa (κ)PPANPA
DTSDetected8700.9898.86 %100 %
Not detected132(0.94−1.00)(93.83−99.97%)(89.11−100%)
LRTDetected3101.00100 %100 %
Not detected011(1.00−1.00)(88.78−100%)(71.51−100%)
OverallDetected11800.9899.16 %100 %
Not detected143(0.95−1.00)(95.41−99.98%)(91.78−100%)
Overall agreements between Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay and reference method among 162 deep throat saliva and lower–respiratory-tract specimens for detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Discussion

The SOC NAAT only allows batch testing. With the use of Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay as a complementary test, it will allow rapid testing of ad-hoc samples received from AED & intensive care unit and provide round-the-clock service for samples received after batch testing cut-time. Similar testing algorithm has been adopted in our laboratory for testing of influenza [10]. The overall performance of Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay was satisfactory when tested with DTS and LRT specimens. Review of the sample with discrepancy showed that it was sent from a known positive COVID-19 patient for disease monitoring. Such discrepancy might be attributed to the low viral load in this sample (Ct = 34.47) as well as potential RNA degradation due to repeated freeze and thaw. With the use of Exact Diagnostics SARS-CoV-2 reference standard (BioRad, USA), the analytical 95 % lower limit of detection of Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay and TIB-Molbiol LightMix® SarbecoV E-gene assay was determined as 50 and 100 copies/mL respectively. To our knowledge, this is the first report to evaluate the use of PBS for sample homogenization of DTS prior to testing with Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay. Previous study used viral transport medium (VTM) for sample homogenization [1]. One study recommended direct transfer of the liquid, non-viscous part of neat sample into the cartridge without pre-treatment [3]. Our previous experience with Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV assay showed that direct transfer of LRT samples, in particular sputum, into the cartridge resulted in a high error frequency. This study was the first to evaluate the testing of LRT specimens (mainly sputum) with pre-treatment to minimize potential invalid results or instrument error. These procedures can minimize the mucus and viscous substances among non-validated specimen types and broaden the testing scope of Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay. With spiked samples, Rodino et al. demonstrated that saline, PBS or MEM can be used as alternative for VTM in SARS-CoV-2 testing [11]. Another study by Williams et al. showed that liquid Amies medium can be used for homogenization of saliva samples [4]. In this study, we demonstrated that both PBS and MM can be used for sample homogenization. LRT samples were suspended with MM for virus isolation in our routine practice, however, this service was obsoleted in February 2020. As in-house preparation for MM is labour intensive, by using PBS to replace MM for sample homogenization will be an effective way to save time and reduce manpower. Future study on usage of PBS for homogenization of LRT specimens will be conducted. In conclusion, with appropriate sample pre-treatment before testing, both DTS & LRT specimens can be tested with the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay with results comparable to the SOC NAAT.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

River Chun-Wai Wong: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Ann Han Wong: Supervision, Writing - review & editing. Yolanda Iok-Ieng Ho: Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Raymond Wai-Man Lai: Project administration, Supervision.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors report no declarations of interest.
  11 in total

1.  Comparison of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV Assay to in-house Flu/RSV triplex real-time RT-PCR for rapid molecular detection of Influenza A, Influenza B and Respiratory Syncytial Virus in respiratory specimens.

Authors:  Yolanda I I Ho; Ann H Wong; Raymond W M Lai
Journal:  J Med Microbiol       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 2.472

2.  Saliva as a Noninvasive Specimen for Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Eloise Williams; Katherine Bond; Bowen Zhang; Mark Putland; Deborah A Williamson
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2020-07-23       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Multicenter Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Test.

Authors:  Michael J Loeffelholz; David Alland; Susan M Butler-Wu; Utsav Pandey; Carlo Frederico Perno; Alice Nava; Karen C Carroll; Heba Mostafa; Emma Davies; Ashley McEwan; Jennifer L Rakeman; Randal C Fowler; Jean-Michel Pawlotsky; Slim Fourati; Sukalyani Banik; Padmapriya P Banada; Shobha Swaminathan; Soumitesh Chakravorty; Robert W Kwiatkowski; Victor C Chu; JoAnn Kop; Rajiv Gaur; Mandy L Y Sin; Duy Nguyen; Simranjit Singh; Na Zhang; David H Persing
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2020-07-23       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Posterior Oropharyngeal Saliva for the Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Authors:  Sally Cheuk Ying Wong; Herman Tse; Hon Kei Siu; Tsz Shan Kwong; Man Yee Chu; Felix Yat Sun Yau; Ingrid Yu Ying Cheung; Cindy Wing Sze Tse; Kin Chiu Poon; Kwok Chi Cheung; Tak Chiu Wu; Johnny Wai Man Chan; Wah Cheuk; David Christopher Lung
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2020-12-31       Impact factor: 9.079

5.  Evaluating the use of posterior oropharyngeal saliva in a point-of-care assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Jonathan Hon-Kwan Chen; Cyril Chik-Yan Yip; Rosana Wing-Shan Poon; Kwok-Hung Chan; Vincent Chi-Chung Cheng; Ivan Fan-Ngai Hung; Jasper Fuk-Woo Chan; Kwok-Yung Yuen; Kelvin Kai-Wang To
Journal:  Emerg Microbes Infect       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 7.163

6.  Deep throat saliva as an alternative diagnostic specimen type for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Eddie Chi-Man Leung; Viola Chi-Ying Chow; May Kin-Ping Lee; Raymond Wai-Man Lai
Journal:  J Med Virol       Date:  2020-07-14       Impact factor: 20.693

7.  Saliva as an Alternate Specimen Source for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Symptomatic Patients Using Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Clare McCormick-Baw; Kristi Morgan; Donna Gaffney; Yareli Cazares; Karen Jaworski; Adrienne Byrd; Kyle Molberg; Dominick Cavuoti
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2020-07-23       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Clinical Evaluation of Three Sample-to-Answer Platforms for Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Wei Zhen; Elizabeth Smith; Ryhana Manji; Deborah Schron; Gregory J Berry
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2020-07-23       Impact factor: 5.948

9.  Brief validation of the novel GeneXpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 PCR assay.

Authors:  Daniel Goldenberger; Karoline Leuzinger; Kirstine K Sogaard; Rainer Gosert; Tim Roloff; Klaudia Naegele; Aline Cuénod; Alfredo Mari; Helena Seth-Smith; Katharina Rentsch; Vladimira Hinić; Hans H Hirsch; Adrian Egli
Journal:  J Virol Methods       Date:  2020-07-10       Impact factor: 2.014

10.  Evaluation of Saline, Phosphate-Buffered Saline, and Minimum Essential Medium as Potential Alternatives to Viral Transport Media for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.

Authors:  Kyle G Rodino; Mark J Espy; Seanne P Buckwalter; Robert C Walchak; Jeffery J Germer; Emily Fernholz; Aimee Boerger; Audrey N Schuetz; Joseph D Yao; Matthew J Binnicker
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 5.948

View more
  14 in total

1.  Tracheal Aspirate and Bronchoalveolar Lavage as Potential Specimen Types for COVID-19 Testing Using the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV.

Authors:  Sang Ho Kim; Fatimah AlMutawa
Journal:  Microbiol Spectr       Date:  2022-05-18

Review 2.  Tools and Techniques for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)/COVID-19 Detection.

Authors:  Seyed Hamid Safiabadi Tali; Jason J LeBlanc; Zubi Sadiq; Oyejide Damilola Oyewunmi; Carolina Camargo; Bahareh Nikpour; Narges Armanfard; Selena M Sagan; Sana Jahanshahi-Anbuhi
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 26.132

3.  Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Authors:  Jacqueline Dinnes; Jonathan J Deeks; Sarah Berhane; Melissa Taylor; Ada Adriano; Clare Davenport; Sabine Dittrich; Devy Emperador; Yemisi Takwoingi; Jane Cunningham; Sophie Beese; Julie Domen; Janine Dretzke; Lavinia Ferrante di Ruffano; Isobel M Harris; Malcolm J Price; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Lotty Hooft; Mariska Mg Leeflang; Matthew Df McInnes; René Spijker; Ann Van den Bruel
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-03-24

Review 4.  Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A scoping review.

Authors:  Yifei Wang; Akshaya Upadhyay; Sangeeth Pillai; Parisa Khayambashi; Simon D Tran
Journal:  Oral Dis       Date:  2022-04-21       Impact factor: 4.068

5.  Comparison Between a Standard and SalivaDirect RNA Extraction Protocol for Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Using Nasopharyngeal Swab and Saliva Clinical Samples.

Authors:  Sofía N Rodríguez Flores; Luis Mario Rodríguez-Martínez; Bernardita L Reyes-Berrones; Nadia A Fernández-Santos; Elthon J Sierra-Moncada; Mario A Rodríguez-Pérez
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2021-03-29

Review 6.  Use of emerging testing technologies and approaches for SARS-CoV-2: review of literature and global experience in an Australian context.

Authors:  Maryza Graham; Susan A Ballard; Shivani Pasricha; Belinda Lin; Tuyet Hoang; Timothy Stinear; Julian Druce; Mike Catton; Norelle Sherry; Deborah Williamson; Benjamin P Howden
Journal:  Pathology       Date:  2021-08-10       Impact factor: 5.306

7.  Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test for bronchoalveolar lavage.

Authors:  Tung Phan; Ashley Mays; Melissa McCullough; Alan Wells
Journal:  J Clin Virol Plus       Date:  2022-02-19

8.  ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines: diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Paraskevi C Fragkou; Giulia De Angelis; Giulia Menchinelli; Fusun Can; Federico Garcia; Florence Morfin-Sherpa; Dimitra Dimopoulou; Elisabeth Mack; Adolfo de Salazar; Adriano Grossi; Theodore Lytras; Chrysanthi Skevaki
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 13.310

9.  Saliva molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2: simplifying the diagnosis without losing accuracy.

Authors:  Francesca Saluzzo; Paola Mantegani; Valeria Poletti de Chaurand; Federica Cugnata; Patrizia Rovere-Querini; Marta Cilla; Patrizia Paola Erba; Sara Racca; Cristina Tresoldi; Caterina Uberti-Foppa; Clelia Di Serio; Daniela Maria Cirillo
Journal:  Eur Respir J       Date:  2021-12-23       Impact factor: 16.671

10.  Performance evaluation of Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 from deep throat saliva, nasopharyngeal, and lower-respiratory-tract specimens.

Authors:  River Chun-Wai Wong; Ann Han Wong; Yolanda Iok-Ieng Ho; Eddie Chi-Man Leung; Raymond Wai-Man Lai
Journal:  J Med Virol       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 20.693

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.