Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Implementation and evaluation of a novel real-time multiplex assay for SARS-CoV-2: In-field learnings from a clinical microbiology laboratory

View ORCID ProfileEloise Williams, Katherine Bond, Brian Chong, Dawn Giltrap, Malcolm Eaton, Peter Kyriakou, Peter Calvert, Bowen Zhang, Mahendra Siwan, Benjamin Howden, Julian Druce, Mike Catton, Deborah A Williamson
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.03.20117267
Eloise Williams
1Department of Microbiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Eloise Williams
Katherine Bond
1Department of Microbiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brian Chong
2Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory, The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dawn Giltrap
1Department of Microbiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Malcolm Eaton
1Department of Microbiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Kyriakou
1Department of Microbiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Calvert
1Department of Microbiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bowen Zhang
1Department of Microbiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mahendra Siwan
1Department of Microbiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Benjamin Howden
3Department of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Melbourne at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Julian Druce
2Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory, The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mike Catton
2Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory, The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Deborah A Williamson
1Department of Microbiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
2Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory, The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia
3Department of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Melbourne at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The unprecedented scale of testing required to effectively control the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has necessitated urgent implementation of rapid testing in clinical microbiology laboratories. To date, there are limited data available on the analytical performance of emerging commercially available assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and integration of these assays into laboratory workflows. Here, we performed a prospective validation study of a commercially available assay, the AusDiagnostics Coronavirus Typing (8-well) assay. Respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing were collected between 1st March and 25th March 2020. All positive samples and a random subset of negative samples were sent to a reference laboratory for confirmation. In total, 2,673 samples were analyzed using the Coronavirus Typing assay. The predominant sample type was a combined nasopharyngeal/throat swab (2,640/2,673; 98.8%). Fifty-four patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 (0.02%) using the Coronavirus Typing assay; 53/54 (98.1%) positive results and 621/621 (100%) negative results were concordant with the reference laboratory. Compared to the reference standard, sensitivity of the Coronavirus Typing assay for SARS-CoV-2 was 100% [95% CI 93.2%-100%], specificity 99.8% [95% CI 99.1%-100%], positive predictive value 98.1% (95% CI 90.2%-99.7%] and negative predictive value 100% [95% CI 99.4%-100%]. In many countries, standard regulatory requirements for the introduction of new assays have been replaced by emergency authorizations and it is critical that laboratories share their post-market validation experiences, as the consequences of widespread introduction of a sub-optimal assay for SARS-CoV-2 are profound. Here, we share our in-field experience, and encourage other laboratories to follow suit.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Clinical Trial

This study was not registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as this test was urgently implemented for clinical need. This study was approved by the Royal Melbourne Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee as part of routine activities relating to the introduction and validation of in-vitro diagnostic devices (Approval number QA2019134). This validation study was conducted according to the guidelines of the National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council, Requirement for quality control assurance and method evaluation (sixth edition).

Funding Statement

No specific funding was received to conduct this work.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This study was approved by the Royal Melbourne Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee as part of routine activities relating to the introduction and validation of in-vitro diagnostic devices (Approval number QA2019134). This validation study was conducted according to the guidelines of the National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council, Requirement for quality control assurance and method evaluation (sixth edition)

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I 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).

Yes

I 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.

Yes

Data Availability

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted June 05, 2020.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Implementation and evaluation of a novel real-time multiplex assay for SARS-CoV-2: In-field learnings from a clinical microbiology laboratory
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Implementation and evaluation of a novel real-time multiplex assay for SARS-CoV-2: In-field learnings from a clinical microbiology laboratory
Eloise Williams, Katherine Bond, Brian Chong, Dawn Giltrap, Malcolm Eaton, Peter Kyriakou, Peter Calvert, Bowen Zhang, Mahendra Siwan, Benjamin Howden, Julian Druce, Mike Catton, Deborah A Williamson
medRxiv 2020.06.03.20117267; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.03.20117267
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Implementation and evaluation of a novel real-time multiplex assay for SARS-CoV-2: In-field learnings from a clinical microbiology laboratory
Eloise Williams, Katherine Bond, Brian Chong, Dawn Giltrap, Malcolm Eaton, Peter Kyriakou, Peter Calvert, Bowen Zhang, Mahendra Siwan, Benjamin Howden, Julian Druce, Mike Catton, Deborah A Williamson
medRxiv 2020.06.03.20117267; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.03.20117267

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)