Ramy Arnaout1,2,3, Rose A Lee1,2,4, Ghee Rye Lee5, Cody Callahan6, Annie Cheng1, Christina F Yen2,4, Kenneth P Smith1,2, Rohit Arora1,2, James E Kirby1,2. 1. Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Division of Clinical Informatics, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Resolving the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires diagnostic testing to determine which individuals are infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The current gold standard is to perform reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on nasopharyngeal samples. Best-in-class assays demonstrate a limit of detection (LoD) of approximately 100 copies of viral RNA per milliliter of transport media. However, LoDs of currently approved assays vary over 10,000-fold. Assays with higher LoDs will miss infected patients. However, the relative clinical sensitivity of these assays remains unknown. METHODS: Here we model the clinical sensitivities of assays based on their LoD. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were obtained from 4700 first-time positive patients using the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 Emergency Use Authorization test. We derived viral loads from Ct based on PCR principles and empiric analysis. A sliding scale relationship for predicting clinical sensitivity was developed from analysis of viral load distribution relative to assay LoD. RESULTS: Ct values were reliably repeatable over short time testing windows, providing support for use as a tool to estimate viral load. Viral load was found to be relatively evenly distributed across log10 bins of incremental viral load. Based on these data, each 10-fold increase in LoD is expected to lower assay sensitivity by approximately 13%. CONCLUSIONS: The assay LoD meaningfully impacts clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 tests. The highest LoDs on the market will miss a majority of infected patients. Assays should therefore be benchmarked against a universal standard to allow cross-comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection methods.
BACKGROUND: Resolving the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires diagnostic testing to determine which individuals are infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The current gold standard is to perform reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on nasopharyngeal samples. Best-in-class assays demonstrate a limit of detection (LoD) of approximately 100 copies of viral RNA per milliliter of transport media. However, LoDs of currently approved assays vary over 10,000-fold. Assays with higher LoDs will miss infectedpatients. However, the relative clinical sensitivity of these assays remains unknown. METHODS: Here we model the clinical sensitivities of assays based on their LoD. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were obtained from 4700 first-time positive patients using the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 Emergency Use Authorization test. We derived viral loads from Ct based on PCR principles and empiric analysis. A sliding scale relationship for predicting clinical sensitivity was developed from analysis of viral load distribution relative to assay LoD. RESULTS: Ct values were reliably repeatable over short time testing windows, providing support for use as a tool to estimate viral load. Viral load was found to be relatively evenly distributed across log10 bins of incremental viral load. Based on these data, each 10-fold increase in LoD is expected to lower assay sensitivity by approximately 13%. CONCLUSIONS: The assay LoD meaningfully impacts clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 tests. The highest LoDs on the market will miss a majority of infectedpatients. Assays should therefore be benchmarked against a universal standard to allow cross-comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection methods.
Authors: Jie Yang; Yang Song; Xiangyu Deng; Jeffrey A Vanegas; Zheng You; Yuxuan Zhang; Zhengyan Weng; Lori Avery; Kevin D Dieckhaus; Advaith Peddi; Yang Gao; Yi Zhang; Xue Gao Journal: Nat Chem Biol Date: 2022-09-22 Impact factor: 16.174
Authors: Lukas E Brümmer; Stephan Katzenschlager; Sean McGrath; Stephani Schmitz; Mary Gaeddert; Christian Erdmann; Marc Bota; Maurizio Grilli; Jan Larmann; Markus A Weigand; Nira R Pollock; Aurélien Macé; Berra Erkosar; Sergio Carmona; Jilian A Sacks; Stefano Ongarello; Claudia M Denkinger Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 11.613
Authors: Rocío Girón-Navarro; Ivonne Linares-Hernández; Luis Antonio Castillo-Suárez Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int Date: 2021-08-27 Impact factor: 4.223
Authors: Aileen G Rowan; Philippa May; Anjna Badhan; Carolina Herrera; Patricia Watber; Rebecca Penn; Michael A Crone; Marko Storch; Jeremy A Garson; Myra McClure; Paul S Freemont; Pinglawathee Madona; Paul Randell; Graham P Taylor Journal: J Virol Methods Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 2.014
Authors: Giacomo Pirovano; Alvaro A Ordonez; Sanjay K Jain; Thomas Reiner; Laurence S Carroll; Naga Vara Kishore Pillarsetty Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Lukas E Brümmer; Stephan Katzenschlager; Mary Gaeddert; Christian Erdmann; Stephani Schmitz; Marc Bota; Maurizio Grilli; Jan Larmann; Markus A Weigand; Nira R Pollock; Aurélien Macé; Sergio Carmona; Stefano Ongarello; Jilian A Sacks; Claudia M Denkinger Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 11.069