Using a nasopharyngeal (NP) or anterior nasal (NS) swab from prospectively collected or retrospective specimens, we assessed the clinical performance of the BD Respiratory Viral Panel (BD RVP) for BD MAX System against FDA-cleared or authorized comparators. Across prospective and retrospective specimens, positive percent agreement (PPA) was ≥ 98.4% for SARS-CoV-2, ≥ 96.7% for influenza (flu) A, ≥ 91.7% for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and 100% for flu B (retrospective only) while negative percent agreement (NPA) was ≥ 97.7% across all targets, leading to the assay FDA clearance. A head-to-head comparison of NS versus NP results with BD RVP was also performed; PPA was ≥ 90% and NPA ≥ 98.2% for SARS-CoV-2, flu A and RSV. These findings confirm that the BD MAX RVP assay performs well for detection and differentiation of the three viruses in NP and NS specimens, with strong interrater agreements for NS versus NP comparisons.

Transmission by asymptomatic individuals is a persistent hurdle in the effort to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, it is essential to continue developing assays and evaluate their performance for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals without COVID-19 symptoms. In this study, 223 nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected from COVID-19 asymptomatic individuals were tested using the BD SARS-CoV-2 (RT-PCR-based) reagents for the BD MAX™ System and compared with results obtained with the Biomerieux BioFire® Respiratory RT-PCR Panel. Positive and negative percent agreements of 100% (95% CI, 84.5%-100%) and 99.0% (95% CI, 96.5%-99.7%), respectively, were observed for the BD SARS-CoV-2 assay. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of the BD SARS-CoV-2 assay for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic individuals and suggest that this assay can facilitate optimized case surveillance and infection control efforts. Investigations using larger sample sizes of asymptomatic individuals would be beneficial to support the findings in this study.

Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) for SARS-CoV-2 is the standard approach for confirming COVID-19 cases. This study compared results between two emergency use authorization (EUA) NAATs, with two additional EUA NAATs utilized for discrepant testing.

ABSTRACTBackgroundThe 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.MethodsThe limits of detection (LOD) for the BD SARS-CoV-2 Reagents for BD MAX™ System (“MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay”), the Biomerieux BioFire® 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® SARS-CoV-2 assay Panther® (“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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThe 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.