Clinical evaluation of the Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH): a point-of-care PCR test for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection

Introduction

Rapid and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection has been a key component of the medical and public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic[1–3]. Despite advances in testing, we need better tools for early diagnosis and screening, particularly as we move toward “test and treat” strategies given several outpatient therapies for COVID-19 have been granted FDA emergency use authorization[4–7]. To date, the “gold standard” for accuracy, with highest analytic sensitivity, are nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-based technologies such as RT-PCR[8,9]. However, PCR testing requires centralized laboratory equipment, a high level of technical expertise, is expensive, time consuming, and is unavailable in many rural or under-resourced settings. Current rapid point-of-care (POC) and home tests are antigen or NAAT non-PCR-based technologies are simple to use, but with lower sensitivity resulting in a limited ability to detect individuals early in SARS-CoV-2 infection when pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic[10–23]. An ideal test for COVID-19 would have the accuracy of laboratory-based PCR testing combined with the speed and ease of use of POC rapid antigen testing[1].

To address this need, Minute Molecular Diagnostics, Inc. (m2dx.com), with support from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx^SM Tech) program (https://www.nibib.nih.gov/covid-19/radx-tech-program), developed the Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH), a sample-to-answer platform designed for POC COVID-19 testing in healthcare settings with potential applications in the community. DASH utilizes rapid PCR and microfluidic fabrication technology with uniquely designed cartridges and an analyzer that are easy to use, do not require technical expertise or specialized training, and produce results in approximately 15 minutes. In laboratory testing, DASH was found to have analytic sensitivity at the same level as laboratory-based PCR with the ability to detect at least 100 copies/mL of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

The primary objective of this clinical validation study was to test the performance and accuracy of the DASH POC test for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals with and without COVID-19 symptoms in outpatient settings.

Methods

Sample Collection and Testing

After we obtained informed consent and participants completed REDCap-based on-line surveys, we performed a single research visit at each clinical site. At the visit, we obtained two bilateral anterior nasal swabs from each participant. To assure each swab was obtained from a “fresh” nostril, the study team clinician (physician or research nurse) first swabbed the left nostril anterior nares by inserting the swab at least 1 cm (0.5 inch) swirling the swab around the nasal wall for 10-15 seconds, then switched to the second swab and sampled the right nostril (same procedure as above), used the second swab to sample the left nostril, and finally switched back to the first swab to sample the right nostril. The first swab was placed into a designated plastic sleeve for testing on DASH SARS-CoV-2 PCR (DASH) machine (Figure 1A) and the second swab placed into viral transport media (VTM), lightly rotated for a few seconds, broken off, and sent for Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-Cov-2 RT-PCR (Xpert) testing. The DASH swab was inserted into the DASH cartridge and run on the machine as per the Quick Reference Guide (QRG) provided by Minute Molecular Diagnostics, Inc. at POC within 30 minutes of collection (Figure 1B). The nasal swab in VTM was transported to the Northwestern Memorial Hospital (NMH) clinical microbiology laboratory and run on the Xpert testing platform within 4 hours of collection. Participants were given the results of only the Xpert standard PCR testing within 24 hours. If DASH and Xpert testing were discordant, then if residual VTM from Xpert testing was available, we performed tie breaker testing of residual VTM using Abbott Alinity M platform.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH) PCR machine at point-of-care in clinical space (panel A) and workflow schematic (panel B): barcode on cartridge scanned, nasal swab added to cartridge and snapped at break point, cartridge loaded into DASH machine, and reported generated on screen/printed after approximately 15 minutes.

For research visits from May 22 to August 6, 2021, DASH testing machines were not available at the POC. During this period, the DASH nasal swab was placed into -80°C freezer in the NMH clinical microbiology laboratory within 4 hours of collection for temporary storage. Once DASH machines became available at POC, then frozen DASH samples were thawed to room temperature for at least an hour (no more than 4 hours) and placed into the DASH cartridge and assay run as per the QRG. Prior laboratory experiments found nasal swabs to be stable under these conditions with less than 6% difference in virus yield (see Supplement).

The RADxtra study team at Emory also collected two bilateral anterior nasal swabs as per the same study procedure detailed above and then shipped de-identified DASH swabs and corresponding VTM overnight to Chicago on ice packs (2-8°C) in compliance with the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Emergency Use Authorized IFU[25]. Upon delivery to Northwestern, the direct nasal swab was run on the DASH machine as per QRG and the VTM nasal swab specimen was run on Xpert per the manufacturer instructions in the NM clinical microbiology laboratory. Again, prior laboratory experiments found nasal swabs to be stable under these conditions with less than 6% difference in virus yield (see Supplement). We provided RADxtra investigators at Emory a unique identifier for each participant of samples/data sent to Northwestern. They kept this link to their study ID locally at Emory and none of the investigators or team at Northwestern had access to this linkage.

A usability survey was distributed to the DASH users after each use of the machine. This survey included questions on DASH complexity and ease of use with no specific training and only instruction from the QRG. For this initial study, we only analyzed the survey response from users who completed the survey after their first use of the DASH machine.

Results

We enrolled 315 participants and obtained valid results from 313 participants at our four clinical sites with samples run by 15 different users on three DASH machines. Among our 313 participants analyzed, median age was 42 years, 65% were female, 75% had received two doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna), 62% had COVID-19 symptoms, 14% had known exposure to someone COVID-19, and 16% had known SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive testing prior to study enrollment (Table 1). Excluding participants from the Emory RADxtra site with limited clinical data (n=116), 27% had co-morbidities.

We found a total of 51 participants tested positive on DASH and 49 participants tested positive on Xpert (Table 2). Summaries of DASH compared to Xpert testing are reported in Tables 2 and 3. Sensitivity of the DASH test was estimated at 0.96 [95% CI: 0.86, 1.00] and specificity was estimated at 0.98 [95% CI: 0.96, 1.00]. There was concordance of 307 tests indicating an overall agreement of 0.98 [95% CI: 0.96, 0.99]. The DASH test had a PPV of 0.85 [95% CI: 0.73, 0.96] and NPV of 0.996 [95% CI: 0.99, 1.00] as compared to the Xpert. Predictive value estimates for a range of infection prevalence rates are depicted in Figure 2 to assess performance across a wide range of COVID-19 prevalence. At the observed disease prevalence within the sample (16%), DASH demonstrated a PPV of .92 [.86, .98] and NPV of .99 [.98, 1.00], however this prevalence is likely an overestimate as known-positive participants were enrolled under our enhanced recruitment strategy. Within the subgroup of participants who tested positive on both Xpert and DASH (n=45), Ct values for DASH and Xpert were highly correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.89 [95% CI .81, .94], Figure 3A). Bland-Altman plot indicated a negative bias, such that Xpert Ct values were higher on average by 7.9 cycles (Figure 3B).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Positive (red line) and negative (green line) predictive values of Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH) SARS-CoV-2 PCR test by varying COVID-19 prevalence.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Correlation (panel A) and Bland-Altman (panel B) analyses for comparison of Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH) PCR and Cepheid Xpert Xpress PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values.

Clinical and testing information for individual participants with discordant results (n=6) are summarized in Table 4. We had two participants with negative DASH testing and positive Xpert testing and four participants with positive DASH testing and negative Xpert testing. All six of these individuals had at least one COVID-19 symptom and/or known positive PCR testing for COVID prior to enrollment. Both false negatives had high Ct values (>35 cycles) on Xpert testing, and 3 of the 4 false positives had high Ct values (>35 cycles) or an indeterminate result (one of two SARS-CoV-2 gene targets detected) on the tiebreaker assay. Five of these individuals with discordant results were late in their course of infection (at least 4 days from onset of symptoms or prior positive PCR testing).

Ten of fifteen users completed our usability survey after their first time running a participant sample on the DASH machine. When asked to rate their agreement with the statement “I found this DASH test was easy to use”, 40% strongly agreed (4 users), 50% agreed (5 users), and one user was neutral. When asked, “would you recommend DASH test to someone else?”, 50% responded “definitely yes” (5 users) 40% responded “probably yes” (4 users), and one user did not respond.

Discussion

In this cross-sectional clinical study, we found that the DASH SARS-CoV-2 PCR was easy to use, fast (time from placement of direct nasal swab into cartridge until result readout of 16 minutes) and performed with excellent test characteristics (sensitivity of 0.96, specificity of 0.98, and overall agreement of 0.98) compared to a “gold standard” laboratory-based PCR in real-life outpatient healthcare settings. From 313 participants with valid results, there were only six discordant results and each of these participants had at least one clinical symptom of COVID-19 or known positive PCR tests. DASH was negative and missed only two infected individuals; however, they both had high Ct values (>39) on standard PCR and thus were unlikely to be contagious[26–29]. In contrast, DASH detected four individuals with SARS-CoV-2 that were missed by Xpert, with only one of these as a potential false positive as RNA was not detected on tie breaker PCR testing and the participant only had dyspnea without other symptoms typical of COVID-19. Discordance only occurred at high Ct values and is consistent with known limitations of SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing assays early or late in infection when virus levels are low[8,9,30,31]. Thus, we believe that DASH performed equivalent to laboratory-based PCR testing and displays its potential as a rapid and highly sensitive POC option to supplement or replace current PCR platforms in real-life clinical settings and eventually the community.

DASH improves upon current POC non-PCR NAAT technologies for SARS-CoV-2 such as Abbott ID NOW. In several studies, the sensitivity of the ID NOW test was found to be between 0.75 – 0.98 depending on number of low positive samples (Ct value >35 on standard PCR assays)[32–37]. Limiting to positive Xpert with Ct values from 35 to 39, DASH detected all low positive samples, thus displaying an ability to potentially detect virus earlier in the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to ID NOW. This has become an important public health issue when testing highly vaccinated populations and those with emerging variants, such as Omicron, who may have a shorter window of SARS-CoV-2 detection or lower levels of virus after high risk exposure[38–41].

In addition, DASH is easy to use (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-waived) and does not require technical or laboratory training to run the machine. Our research team of 15 different users had neither formal training nor laboratory expertise and were able to perform DASH testing with valid results from 99.4% of participants sampled. Only using instruction from the QRG, 90% of our users assessed DASH to be easy to use and they all recommended DASH to others who might be doing COVID testing. We plan to expand these assessments as more users have access to DASH and perform qualitative research to optimize DASH usability in clinical and non-clinical settings.

Correlation analyses (see Figure 2A) between DASH and Xpert Ct values demonstrated a strong association; however, Bland-Altman plots (Figure 2B) indicated DASH PCR Ct values were systematically lower than Xpert PCR. These differences could occur for several possible technical reasons. DASH and Xpert PCRs both detect two SARS-CoV-2 targets; however, DASH does this in the same fluorescent channel whereby Xpert splits molecular material between two separate channels. Also, for DASH, the nasal swab was directly inserted into the cartridge whereas Xpert swab was placed in 3 mL of VTM, and then 300 μl of liquid media added to the cartridge. Finally, DASH processes approximately 50% of the specimen and Xpert only processes 10%. These results suggest that DASH can provide meaningful semi-quantitative viral load measurements, similar to laboratory-based PCR, but at POC and quick enough to potentially influence clinical or public health guidance.

Our study had several limitations. First, the cross-sectional design did not allow us to understand test characteristics of DASH over time and throughout the dynamic range of SARS-CoV-2 infection within individuals. Second, most of our participants were symptomatic and only one positive sample was from an asymptomatic participant. Additionally, our participants were young, highly vaccinated, and without major co-morbidities including immune suppression. Thus, DASH test characteristics are less certain for those at greatest risk for severe COVID-19 or among certain special populations. Although, other PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 testing technologies have generally performed well across many different high-risk patient groups[42– 47].

DASH is an important advancement in molecular POC diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 with potential applications beyond many non-PCR NAAT technologies. DASH could decentralize PCR diagnostics by bringing molecular testing to a wider range of community settings in the U.S. and throughout the world. We need highly sensitive and easy to use technologies with the ability to quantify virus for monitoring SARS-CoV-2 infection dynamics and when to safely end isolation. Further research will allow us to understand how DASH could be utilized for detecting emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, community surveillance, or large non-health care screening of travelers, students, educators, and front-line workers.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institutes for Health (NIH)/National Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB)(U54EB027049-02S1 and U54EB027690). We utilized Northwestern REDCap which is supported by Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (NUCATS). NUCATS is funded in part by a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) grant from the NIH (UL1TR001422). The Emory RADxtra clinics are supported by NIH NIBIB (U54EB027690) Emory University’s Children’s Clinical and Translational Discovery Core and Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Grady Health System.

Authorship Contributions and Conflict of Interest

C.J.A., R.L.M, C.H., L.C.B., and C.Q. designed the study, wrote the research study protocol, standard operating procedures, and a priori statistical analysis plans. M.C., J.O., and E.D. conducted participant recruitment, enrollment, consenting, and scheduling at NMH IDC and CRU sites. C.J.A. and C.H. performed study visits and obtained nasal swabs samples at NMH IDC. A.J. and H.A. conducted participant recruitment, enrollment, consenting, and study visits including nasal swabs at Access Community Health Network. J.K.F., J.M.L., P.A.R., R.R.K., A.M.E., W.A.L., and G.S.M. conducted participant recruitment, enrollment, consenting, and study visits including nasal swabs at Emory RADxtra clinics. Statistical analyses were performed by M.C. with assistance from L.C.B. and C.J.A. The initial draft of the manuscript was written by C.J.A. and M.C. Throughout the study, all authors participated in discussions about the study conduct, analyses, and interpretation of findings. All authors were also involved in the review and editing process of the final manuscript for submission. Minute Molecular Diagnostics, Inc. provided DASH machines, cartridges, Puritan nasal swabs, and technical support (including providing Supplement); however, they were not involved in the research design, participant recruitment, enrollment, informed consent, study visits, sample collection, DASH/Xpert testing, data collection, statistical analyses, drafting or editing of this manuscript. All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.