Implementation and evaluation of a novel real-time multiplex assay for SARS-CoV-2: In-field learnings from a clinical microbiology laboratory - Williams, Eloise; Bond, Katherine; Chong, Brian; Giltrap, Dawn; Eaton, Malcolm; Kyriakou, Peter; Calvert, Peter; Zhang, Bowen; Siwan, Mahendra; Howden, Benjamin; Druce, Julian; Catton, Mike; et al. (medRxiv, 2020)
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 In many countries, standard regulatory requirements for the introduction of new assays have been replaced by emergency authorizations and it is critical that laboratories share their post-market validation experiences, as the consequences of widespread introduction of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 StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialThis 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 StatementNo specific funding was received to conduct this work. Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe 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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.