Standardization and Comparison of Emergency Use Authorized COVID-19 Assays and Testing Laboratories.

• Authors: Anuradha Rao, Emory University; Jessica Lin, Emory University; Richard Parsons, Emory University; Morgan Greenleaf, Emory University; Adrianna Lynn Westbrook, Emory University; Eric Lai, Personalized Science San Diego; Heather Brittany Bowers, Emory University; Kaleb McClendon, The Atlanta Center for Microsystems-Engineered Point-of-Care Technologies; William O'Sick, The Atlanta Center for Microsystems-Engineered Point-of-Care Technologies; Tyler Jon Baugh, Emory University; Markayla Sifford, Emory University; Julie A. Sullivan, Emory University; Wilbur Lam, Emory University; Leda C. Bassit, Emory University
• Journal Title: medRxiv
• Publisher: NIH | 2023-11-08
• Type of Work: Article | Preprint: Prior to Peer Review
• Publisher DOI: http://doi.org/10.1101/2023.11.08.23297633
• Subjects: Biology, Molecular; Biology, Virology
• Keywords: standardization; comparator; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; testing rates; calibration; molecular; antigen

Abstract

Motivation: The motivation for this work was the need to establish a predefined cutoff based on genome copies per ml (GE/ml) rather than Ct, which can vary depending on the laboratory and assay used. A GE/ml-based threshold was necessary to define what constituted ‘low positives” for samples that were included in data sets submitted to the FDA for emergency use approval for SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests. Summary: SARS-CoV-2, the causal agent of the global COVID-19 pandemic, made its appearance at the end of 2019 and is still circulating in the population. The pandemic led to an urgent need for fast, reliable, and widely available testing. After December 2020, the emergence of new variants of SARS-CoV-2 led to additional challenges since new and existing tests had to detect variants to the same extent as the original Wuhan strain. When an antigen-based test is submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) consideration it is benchmarked against PCR comparator assays, which yield cycle threshold (CT) data as an indirect indicator of viral load – the lower the CT, the higher the viral load of the sample and the higher the CT, the lower the viral load. The FDA mandates that 10–20% of clinical samples used to evaluate the antigen test have to be low positive. Low positive, as defined by the FDA, are clinical samples in which the CT of the SARS-CoV-2 target gene is within 3 CT of the mean CT value of the approved comparator test’s Limit of Detection (LOD). While all comparator tests are PCR-based, the results from different PCR assays used are not uniform. Results vary depending on assay platform, target gene, LOD and laboratory methodology. The emergence and dominance of the Omicron variant further challenged this approach as the fraction of low positive clinical samples dramatically increased as compared to earlier SARS-CoV-2 variants. This led to 20–40% of clinical samples having high CT values and therefore assays vying for an EUA were failing to achieve the 80% Percent Positive Agreement (PPA) threshold required. Here we describe the methods and statistical analyses used to establish a predefined cutoff, based on genome copies per ml (GE/ml) to classify samples as low positive (less than the cutoff GE/ml) or high positive (greater than the cutoff GE/mL). CT 30 for the E gene target using Cobas® SARS-CoV-2-FluA/B platform performed at TriCore Reference Laboratories, and this low positive cutoff value was used for two EUA authorizations. Using droplet digital PCR and methods described here, a value 49,447.72 was determined as the GE/ml equivalent for the low positive cutoff. The CT cutoff corresponding to 49447.72 GE/ml was determined across other platforms and laboratories. The methodology and statistical analysis described here can now be used for standardization of all comparators used for FDA submissions with a goal towards establishing uniform criteria for EUA authorization.