Comparison of next generation diagnostic systems (NGDS) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2

Antonio O. Sanchez; Anna R. Ochoa; Sallie L. Hall; Chet R. Voelker; Rachel E. Mahoney; Jennifer S. McDaniel; August Blackburn; Susana N. Asin; Tony T. Yuan

doi:10.1002/jcla.24285

Comparison of next generation diagnostic systems (NGDS) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2

Antonio O. Sanchez, Anna R. Ochoa, Sallie L. Hall, Chet R. Voelker, Rachel E. Mahoney, Jennifer S. McDaniel, August Blackburn, Susana N. Asin, Tony T. Yuan^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

7 Scopus citations

Abstract

Introduction: The World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic in March 2020. Initially, supply chain disruptions and increased demand for testing led to shortages of critical laboratory reagents and inadequate testing capacity. Thus, alternative means of biosample collection and testing were essential to overcome these obstacles and reduce viral transmission. This study aimed to 1) compare the sensitivity and specificity of Cepheid GeneXpert^® IV and BioFire^® FilmArray^® 2.0 next generation detection systems to detect SARS-CoV-2, 2) evaluate the performance of both platforms using different biospecimen types, and 3) assess saline as an alternative to viral transport media (VTM) for sample collection. Methods: A total of 1,080 specimens consisting of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs in VTM, NP swabs in saline, nasal swabs, oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, and saliva were collected from 216 enrollees. Limit of detection (LoD) assays, NP VTM and NP saline concordance, and saliva testing were performed on the BioFire^® FilmArray^® 2.0 Respiratory Panel 2.1 and Cepheid GeneXpert^® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assays. Results: LoD and comparative testing demonstrated increased sensitivity with the Cepheid compared with the BioFire^® in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in NP VTM and saline, nasal, and OP swabs. Conversely, saliva testing on the Cepheid showed statistically significant lower sensitivity compared to the BioFire^®. Finally, NP swabs in saline showed no significant difference compared with NP swabs in VTM on both platforms. Conclusion: The Cepheid and BioFire^® NGDS are viable options to address a variety of public health needs providing rapid and reliable, point-of-care testing using a variety of clinical matrices.

Original language	English
Article number	e24285
Journal	Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis
Volume	36
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.24285
State	Published - Apr 2022
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

BioFire
biospecimen
Cepheid
COVID-19
next generation detection systems
SARS-CoV-2

Access to Document

10.1002/jcla.24285

Cite this

@article{248b690557ae49f9ba965090d87b4f08,

title = "Comparison of next generation diagnostic systems (NGDS) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2",

abstract = "Introduction: The World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic in March 2020. Initially, supply chain disruptions and increased demand for testing led to shortages of critical laboratory reagents and inadequate testing capacity. Thus, alternative means of biosample collection and testing were essential to overcome these obstacles and reduce viral transmission. This study aimed to 1) compare the sensitivity and specificity of Cepheid GeneXpert{\textregistered} IV and BioFire{\textregistered} FilmArray{\textregistered} 2.0 next generation detection systems to detect SARS-CoV-2, 2) evaluate the performance of both platforms using different biospecimen types, and 3) assess saline as an alternative to viral transport media (VTM) for sample collection. Methods: A total of 1,080 specimens consisting of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs in VTM, NP swabs in saline, nasal swabs, oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, and saliva were collected from 216 enrollees. Limit of detection (LoD) assays, NP VTM and NP saline concordance, and saliva testing were performed on the BioFire{\textregistered} FilmArray{\textregistered} 2.0 Respiratory Panel 2.1 and Cepheid GeneXpert{\textregistered} Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assays. Results: LoD and comparative testing demonstrated increased sensitivity with the Cepheid compared with the BioFire{\textregistered} in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in NP VTM and saline, nasal, and OP swabs. Conversely, saliva testing on the Cepheid showed statistically significant lower sensitivity compared to the BioFire{\textregistered}. Finally, NP swabs in saline showed no significant difference compared with NP swabs in VTM on both platforms. Conclusion: The Cepheid and BioFire{\textregistered} NGDS are viable options to address a variety of public health needs providing rapid and reliable, point-of-care testing using a variety of clinical matrices.",

keywords = "BioFire, biospecimen, Cepheid, COVID-19, next generation detection systems, SARS-CoV-2",

author = "Sanchez, {Antonio O.} and Ochoa, {Anna R.} and Hall, {Sallie L.} and Voelker, {Chet R.} and Mahoney, {Rachel E.} and McDaniel, {Jennifer S.} and August Blackburn and Asin, {Susana N.} and Yuan, {Tony T.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: Published 2022. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.",

year = "2022",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1002/jcla.24285",

language = "English",

volume = "36",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis",

issn = "0887-8013",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of next generation diagnostic systems (NGDS) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2

AU - Sanchez, Antonio O.

AU - Ochoa, Anna R.

AU - Hall, Sallie L.

AU - Voelker, Chet R.

AU - Mahoney, Rachel E.

AU - McDaniel, Jennifer S.

AU - Blackburn, August

AU - Asin, Susana N.

AU - Yuan, Tony T.

N1 - Publisher Copyright: Published 2022. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

PY - 2022/4

Y1 - 2022/4

N2 - Introduction: The World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic in March 2020. Initially, supply chain disruptions and increased demand for testing led to shortages of critical laboratory reagents and inadequate testing capacity. Thus, alternative means of biosample collection and testing were essential to overcome these obstacles and reduce viral transmission. This study aimed to 1) compare the sensitivity and specificity of Cepheid GeneXpert® IV and BioFire® FilmArray® 2.0 next generation detection systems to detect SARS-CoV-2, 2) evaluate the performance of both platforms using different biospecimen types, and 3) assess saline as an alternative to viral transport media (VTM) for sample collection. Methods: A total of 1,080 specimens consisting of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs in VTM, NP swabs in saline, nasal swabs, oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, and saliva were collected from 216 enrollees. Limit of detection (LoD) assays, NP VTM and NP saline concordance, and saliva testing were performed on the BioFire® FilmArray® 2.0 Respiratory Panel 2.1 and Cepheid GeneXpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assays. Results: LoD and comparative testing demonstrated increased sensitivity with the Cepheid compared with the BioFire® in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in NP VTM and saline, nasal, and OP swabs. Conversely, saliva testing on the Cepheid showed statistically significant lower sensitivity compared to the BioFire®. Finally, NP swabs in saline showed no significant difference compared with NP swabs in VTM on both platforms. Conclusion: The Cepheid and BioFire® NGDS are viable options to address a variety of public health needs providing rapid and reliable, point-of-care testing using a variety of clinical matrices.

AB - Introduction: The World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic in March 2020. Initially, supply chain disruptions and increased demand for testing led to shortages of critical laboratory reagents and inadequate testing capacity. Thus, alternative means of biosample collection and testing were essential to overcome these obstacles and reduce viral transmission. This study aimed to 1) compare the sensitivity and specificity of Cepheid GeneXpert® IV and BioFire® FilmArray® 2.0 next generation detection systems to detect SARS-CoV-2, 2) evaluate the performance of both platforms using different biospecimen types, and 3) assess saline as an alternative to viral transport media (VTM) for sample collection. Methods: A total of 1,080 specimens consisting of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs in VTM, NP swabs in saline, nasal swabs, oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, and saliva were collected from 216 enrollees. Limit of detection (LoD) assays, NP VTM and NP saline concordance, and saliva testing were performed on the BioFire® FilmArray® 2.0 Respiratory Panel 2.1 and Cepheid GeneXpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assays. Results: LoD and comparative testing demonstrated increased sensitivity with the Cepheid compared with the BioFire® in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in NP VTM and saline, nasal, and OP swabs. Conversely, saliva testing on the Cepheid showed statistically significant lower sensitivity compared to the BioFire®. Finally, NP swabs in saline showed no significant difference compared with NP swabs in VTM on both platforms. Conclusion: The Cepheid and BioFire® NGDS are viable options to address a variety of public health needs providing rapid and reliable, point-of-care testing using a variety of clinical matrices.

KW - BioFire

KW - biospecimen

KW - Cepheid

KW - COVID-19

KW - next generation detection systems

KW - SARS-CoV-2

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85124847119&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jcla.24285

DO - 10.1002/jcla.24285

M3 - Article

C2 - 35174538

AN - SCOPUS:85124847119

SN - 0887-8013

VL - 36

JO - Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis

JF - Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis

IS - 4

M1 - e24285

ER -