Performance evaluation of the BD SARS-CoV-2 reagents for the BD MAXâ¢ system

Background The RT-qPCR assay for detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus is the favorable approach to test suspected COVID-19 cases. However, discordant results can occur when two or more assays are compared. Variability in analytical sensitivities between assays, among other factors, may account for these differences in reporting. Methods The limits of detection (LOD) for the BD SARS-CoV-2 Reagents for BD MAXTM System ('MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay'), the Biomerieux BioFire(R) Respiratory Panel 2.1 ('BioFire SARS-CoV-2 assay'), the Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay ('cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay'), and the Hologic Aptima(R) SARS-CoV-2 assay Panther(R) ('Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay') RT-qPCR systems were determined using a total of 84 contrived nasopharyngeal specimens with seven target levels for each comparator. The positive and negative percent agreement (PPA and NPA, respectively) for the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay were compared to the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay in a post-market clinical study utilizing 708 paired nasopharyngeal specimens collected from suspected COVID-19 cases. Discordant results were further tested by the cobas and BioFire SARS-CoV-2 assays. Results The measured LOD for the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay (251 copies/mL) was comparable to the cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay (298 copies/mL) and the BioFire SARS-CoV-2 assay (302 copies/mL); the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay had a LOD of 612 copies/mL. The MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay had a PPA of 100% (95%CI: [97.3%-100.0%]) and a NPA of 96.7% (95%CI: [94.9%-97.9%]) when compared to the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay. Conclusions The MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay exhibited a high analytical sensitivity and specificity for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The clinical performance of the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay agreed with another sensitive EUA cleared assay.


INTRODUCTION 66
Since December 2019, when a cluster of cases was first reported in Wuhan, China, the COVID-67 19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has been a major public health crisis, 68 globally.(1) As of mid-May 2021, more than 160 million cases and 3.3 million deaths have been 69 identified, worldwide, with more than 32.8 million cases and 582 thousand deaths in the U.S. 70 alone.
(2) Rapid transmission and lack of treatment make it difficult to mitigate the pandemic. (3)  71 Isolating suspected patients and executing effective contact tracing is critical for managing the 72 spread of the disease.(4) Diagnosis of COVID-19, through accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 is 73 the first step in guiding healthcare providers to triage patients, determine the treatment plan, and 74 quarantine suspected contacts. 75 76 Diagnostic testing methodology for SARS-CoV-2 detection has been rapidly implemented in 77 response to the pandemic.(5) The molecular or nucleic acid testing using the real-time, reverse 78 transcriptase-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay has been a standard way 79 to detect SARS-CoV-2 and diagnose COVID-19.(6) RT-qPCR-based assays are effective for 80 SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection in upper respiratory specimens collected through swab 81 sampling. (7,8) This approach generally exhibits advantages in sensitivity and specificity in 82 specimens collected from nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal, mid-turbinate nasal, or anterior nasal 83 swabs. Although the overall turnaround time has been lengthy traditionally, the implementation 84 of molecular testing on automated platforms has helped to ensure better turn-around-times for 85 RT-qPCR testing while maintaining a high level of performance for detection of SARS-CoV-2. 86 87 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 18, 2021. ; In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Food 88 and Drug Administration (FDA) issued emergency use authorization (EUA) for the development 89 of in vitro diagnostic assays.(5, 9) Several manufactures have developed RT-qPCR platforms for 90 SARS-CoV-2 testing. Most of them are intended for testing nasal, nasopharyngeal, and 91 oropharyngeal swab samples collected from individuals suspected of having COVID-19. The BD 92 SARS-CoV-2 Reagents for BD MAX TM System ("MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay;" Becton, 93 Dickinson and Company; BD Life Sciences -Integrated Diagnostics Solutions, Sparks, MD, 94 USA) utilizes multiplexed primers and probes that are designed to amplify two unique regions of 95 the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) gene, N1 and N2, and the human ribonucleases P (RNase P) 96 gene and received FDA EUA on April 8, 2020.(10) Following the initial EUA, two 97 modifications were authorized (on March 10, 2021) by the FDA for the assay: (a) an increase to 98 the cutoff for the N2 channel, (b) an improvement to the probe chemistry to reduce the 99 background fluorescence.(11) 100 determining the positive percent and negative percent agreements (PPA and NPA, respectively) 111 with the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay. The utilization of multiple assays here facilitated 112 comprehensive discordant testing in the absence of an established clinical reference standard 113 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-based assay. 114 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 18, 2021. ;https://doi.org/10.1101https://doi.org/10. /2021

METHODS AND MATERIALS 115
Specimens and assays 116 The first study compared the analytical sensitivity of the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay, the BioFire 117 SARS-CoV-2 assay, the cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay, and the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay. A total 118 of 84 contrived nasopharyngeal specimens were prepared for each commercial assay. The 119 specimens were diluted in universal viral transport media to generate a panel consisting 120 replicates of six concentrations (22,67,200,600,1800, and 5400 copies/mL) for each assay. An 121 additional negative control level was also prepared for each panel. 122

123
The second study involved post-market clinical testing and involved 1,376 specimens from four 124 collection sites in the U.S. (Table S1). The specimens included prospective as well as 125 consecutively collected remnant nasopharyngeal swabs from symptomatic patients suspected of 126 COVID-19 by their healthcare providers. There were 64 specimens that had an Aptima SARS-127 CoV-2 result but were not tested on MAX SARS-CoV-2. There were also 288 specimens that 128 were enrolled but were not tested on either Aptima SARS-CoV-2 or MAX SARS-CoV-2 since 129 the positive target goal was attained. Overall, 708 paired specimens were utilized for testing and 130 analysis. Demographic information for compliant specimens with reportable results is shown in 131 is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 18, 2021. ; The analytical sensitivity values for the four assays were determined by calculating the limit of 138 detection (LOD) using probit regression analysis. The point estimate for LOD is the lowest 139 detectable concentration of SARS-CoV-2 at which approximately 95% of all (true positive) 140 replicates test positive. Goodness-of-fit test was performed using Pearson and deviance 141 correlation methods. Only data following normality or having at least two functional data points 142 from a comparator yielded an appropriate statistical fit. 143 144 For the post-market clinical study, the primary outcome measures were PPA and NPA point 145 estimates (with calculated 95% confidence intervals [95% CI] using the Wilson score method) 146 for the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay, compared to the reference assay, Aptima SARS-CoV-2. 147 Cohen's kappa coefficient was utilized to gauge the agreement between two raters (reference 148 versus index test) to classify results into mutually exclusive categories. Κ =(P o -P e)/1-P e (<0, 0, and 149 >0 indicate agreements worse than, no better or worse than, and better than that expected by 150 chance). Acceptance criteria for the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay for FDA-EUA clearance for 151 SARS-CoV-2 were ≥ 95% for both PPA and NPA.(9) Only compliant and reportable results for 152 both MAX SARS-CoV-2 and comparator assays were included. This article was prepared 153 according to STARD guidelines for diagnostic accuracy studies reporting.(12) Data will be made 154 publicly available upon publication and upon request for peer review. 155 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

156
The MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay was subjected to a series of validations to determine the impact 157 (if any) on analytical sensitivity and specificity resulting from the cutoff change on the N2 158 channel and the modification to the probe chemistry.(10) As shown in Table 1, the LOD of the 159 MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay was obtained and compared to three other commercially available 160 SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR assays, specifically, the BioFire SARS-CoV-2, the cobas SARS-CoV-2, 161 and the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assays. From a total of 84 contrived nasopharyngeal specimens 162 with seven target levels, the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay had the lowest LOD (251 copies/mL), but 163 was comparable to cobas SARS-CoV-2 (298 copies/mL for Target 2) and BioFire SARS-CoV-2 164 (302 copies/mL) assays. The Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay showed the highest LOD (612 165 copies/mL), but was within a 2-fold concentration range of the other assays. 166

167
In the clinical evaluation study, a total of 708 specimens tested were included for paired analysis. 168 Among all analyzed samples, 138 were positive by both MAX SARS-CoV-2 and Aptima SARS-169 CoV-2 assays, while 551 tested negative by both assays. Therefore, MAX SARS-CoV-2 testing 170 resulted in a PPA of 100% (95%CI: [97.3%-100.0%]) and a NPA of 96.7% (95%CI: [94.9%-171 97.9%]), when compared to the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay (Table 2). Discordant results were 172 observed from 19 specimens that were positive with the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay but negative 173 by the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay (Table 3). Among these, 5 specimens were N1 positive/N2 174 positive, 11 specimens were N1 positive/N2 negative, and 3 specimens were N1 negative/N2 175 positive. The BioFire SARS-CoV-2 and the cobas SARS-CoV-2 assays were utilized for 176 discrepancy testing. Of the 19 discordant specimens, 4 tested positive by the cobas SARS-CoV-2 177 assay and 5 were positive by the BioFire SARS-CoV-2 assay. One of the specimens did not 178 generate a reportable result from either the cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay or the BioFire SARS-CoV-179 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 18, 2021.
2 assay. Five (5) of the 19 discordant specimens did not have sufficient volume for BioFire 180 SARS-CoV-2 testing and 5 did not yield valid results from the cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay due to 181 a low volume error. Overall, 7 of 19 MAX SARS-CoV-2-positive specimens were also positive 182 in discordant testing. Further analysis revealed that only one of the specimen results 183 corresponded to the MAX SARS-CoV-2 Ct values less than 30 (specimen ID #9 in Table 3); the 184 other results were either at, or close to, the LOD for the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay. 185 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. several subgenomic regions encoding the structural proteins, such as spike protein (S), envelope 208 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 18, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.12.21257120 doi: medRxiv preprint (E), membrane protein (M), and nucleocapsid (N) ( Figure S1A). Among these subgenomic 209 regions, the N gene expresses the most abundant transcript, and could provide a higher starting 210 amount of template, giving the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay a lower apparent LOD. (14) In 211 addition, the larger input volume associated with the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay could facilitate a 212 lower LOD by further providing more template from which to amplify ( Figure S1B). (10)  Alignments against the N gene showed that both N1 and N2 primer/probe sets are a perfect 225 match to 93.8% of sequences in the database, 96.8% of the sequences are a perfect match to the 226 N1 primer set region, and 97.0% are a perfect match to the N2 primer set region. In total, 99.9% 227 are a perfect match to either the N1 or the N2 region primer set. Additionally, N1 and N2 primers 228 showed no significant combined homologies with human genome regions, other coronaviruses, 229 or human microflora that would predict potential false positive RT-qPCR results. On the other 230 hand, with Aptima and cobas SARS-CoV-2 assays recognizing ORF1 gene and BioFire SARS-231 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 18, 2021. ; CoV-2 assay targeting the S and M genes, the detection of mutated SARS-CoV-2 may be missed 232 ( Figure S1A  Not all discordant specimens were tested by two other assays, cobas SARS-CoV-2 and BioFire 249 SARS-CoV-2, due to the specimen volume available. 250

251
Conclusions 252 MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay has two targets specific for the N gene of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that 253 contributes to the high analytical sensitivity and specificity in detecting the virus. MAX SARS-254 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 18, 2021. ; CoV-2 assay exhibited strong clinical agreement to another EUA assay with more positives 255 detected as confirmed by the discordant methodology. 256 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 18, 2021. ;

7.
La . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 18, 2021. ;  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 18, 2021. a There were 64 specimens that had an Aptima SARS-CoV-2 result but were not tested on MAX SARS-CoV-2. There were also 288 specimens that were enrolled but were not tested on either Aptima SARS-CoV-2 or MAX SARS-CoV-2 since the positive target goal was reached. .

CC-BY 4.0 International license
It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 18, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 18, 2021.