March 2020 – Page 2 – Lablogatory

How to Validate a COVID-19 Assay

The FDA is now democratizing the testing of the novel coronavirus: SARS-CoV-2 (the virus which causes the COVID-19 disease syndrome—I will call it COVID-19 from here on as that is the colloquial name most people know) by allowing high complexity testing labs across the United States. This move will permit more labs to test for COVID-19. A previous post by contributor Constantine Kanakis describes the biology of the virus, so I will not repeat that material. Instead, I will focus on some considerations in validating a Lab Developed Test (LDT) COVID-19 molecular assay.

The president of AACC, Carmen Wiley, said there are 11,000 high complexity testing labs in the US, which could qualify for performing this testing. However, not all of these labs have molecular and virology expertise, so others have placed the number of labs with qualified staff and instrumentation at 400.

Published Assays and Targets: As an overview, the figure below (Figure 1) summarizes some published COVID-19 assays. As you can see, the major strategy involves using the TaqMan probe strategy where a short probe is degraded by Taq polymerase releasing a fluorescent molecule (green ball) from a quencher molecule (blue ball). The TaqMan approach allows for quick performance of the assay and easy interpretation. One lab from Japan is using nested PCR amplification and sequencing of the Orf1a and S genes as well.

Figure 1. The COVID-19 genetic structure is abbreviated above with the different genes targeted displayed. The names of institutions that have published their assay procedure along with the TaqMan reagents that were reportedly used with each assay are shown above. Primers are represented by small arrows with a TaqMan probe in the middle represented by a black line with green and blue circles indicative of the fluorescent molecule and its quencher. The double set of arrows for the Japanese assay represents a nested PCR strategy.

In silico Cross-reactivity:

The FDA guidance allows cross-reactivity to be minimally assessed in silico by demonstrating “greater than 80% homology between primer/probes and any sequence present in the targeted microorganism.” The primer locations can be found in the publication of each protocol (except Thermo) and can be confirmed by checking the NCBI Blast site and they actually have a selection for beta-cornavirus (Figure 2) now that allows you to search for your primer’s reactivity across other related viruses- Very helpful!

Figure 2. Select Betacornavirus before entering your primer/probe sequence to confirm cross-reactivity.

Primer/Probe Design:

The N region is the most popular site to probe and is included in most kits once and the CDC kit three times. It was the reagent set for N3 in the CDC kit that was having difficulties, so you may decide to not include that component in your LDT. If you want to see how the different available primer sets align on the N gene sequence you can see below for the primers labeled based on their source. Many are overlapping, perhaps because many people thought the same site was a good target (Figure 3).

Figure 3. N-gene of COVID-19 along with labeled primers from some published assays. The information on the source of the sequence is shown on the bottom right with the link.

Commercially Available Assays:

An important part of validating your COVID-19 assay is to do so quickly. Thus commercially available kits would be helpful, however there are only two commercially available sources at this time: IDT and Thermo. IDT is producing a kit with the CDC design. Thermo produced their kit over the last few months and does not have any published validation information that I could find. Also Thermo when I checked just now for the catalog number, it says this product is unavailable… not sure what that means, but maybe you can try contacting them. Both IDT and Thermo list control plasmid reagents for their assays.

Controls for the Assay:

The wording of the FDA announcement was interesting in that it 1) did not require clinical samples, but allows “contrived clinical specimens.” “Contrived reactive specimens can be created by spiking RNA or inactivated virus into leftover clinical specimens.” A major difficulty is the access to actual COVID-19 RNA or inactivated virus. I noticed that the guidance didn’t say that the assay MUST use RNA. Thus most labs would have access to plasmid DNA, which could potentially be used.

Given the limited availability of RNA for validation use, a lab may consider performing much of the assay optimization with COVID-19 Plasmid DNA while waiting for access to RNA. I would like to be sure my assay could extract, amplify and detect RNA as part of the clinical validation.

Asuragen can produce Armored RNA, with synthetic RNA packaged inside of a viral capsid, which would be a useful control for extraction, amplification and detection. However, we heard this will not be available for another month.

Tom Stenzel (director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health at the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH)) said FDA, BARDA, and the CDC will prioritize and coordinate shipments of viral materials to labs when they are ready to validate tests according to a webinar with labs on Monday. Currently, the FDA is directing inquiries to BEI, which is reportedly prioritizing requests to send out samples in 12-72 hours.

Lastly, one could try to use in vitro synthesized RNA sequences surrounding your primer targets as a control for now and may have better luck in getting the product soon. This is the control that is being shipped with the CDC kits to public labs.

Limit of Detection is an unknown for what is likely to be clinically relevant as we don’t know what the levels look like in people with early vs. late vs. severe vs. mild disease. The FDA just says you should be able to detect 95% of samples (19 of 20) that are x1-x2 the limit of detection.

FDA Notification:

This is the final and important step. Once you go live, you must notify the FDA with an Emergency Use Assay (EUA) form within 15 days. Reviewing the form, there doesn’t appear to have complex explanations or overdue requirements for reporting, which wouldn’t be found in a standard lab validation document.

Final Thoughts/Future commercial solutions:

This information is the best of what I know right now based on current information- this is not a complete guide and the FDA guidance should be read closely for all compliance details. Information is changing quickly and is likely to change more if the number of COVID-19 cases in the United States increases. Cepheid, Luminex, and BioFire are reportedly working on assays that will be out in several months and would be easy to use for many labs that already have one or both of these systems-however it may require a full validation for an LDT, but I’m not sure as it is an EUA-further clarification on this point is needed. Although there are several commercial solutions available, we don’t know how demand could impact supply from each company. Fortunately, some large reference labs like LabCorp and Quest are looking to develop a COVID19 test. Good luck, stay safe, and feel free to contact me with any questions in the comments below so that everyone can benefit from the discussion!

References

In lieu of a list of references, I’ve included web links for the most current and direct sources of information.

-Jeff SoRelle, MD is a Chief Resident of Pathology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, TX. His clinical research interests include understanding how the lab intersects with transgender healthcare and improving genetic variant interpretation.

FDA Guidance to Develop Novel Molecular Diagnostic Tests for SARS-CoV-2

A laboratory advisory from the CDC:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued new guidance on February 29, 2020, for laboratories to be able to develop novel coronavirus (COVID-19) molecular diagnostics tests and begin use prior to obtaining Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). This permits laboratories that are CLIA certified and meet requirements to perform high complexity testing to start offering severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) molecular diagnostic testing after validation is completed as outlined in the guidance. Laboratories should submit an EUA request to the FDA within fifteen business days after validation. FDA will be hosting a webinar to provide more information on March 2, 2020, at 3 pm ET.

Clinical laboratories should contact their state health departments for guidance if they have a suspected COVID-19 case specimen. Clinical laboratories should NOT attempt viral isolation from specimens collected from COVID-19 persons under investigation (PUIs). For interim guidelines for collecting, handling, and testing clinical specimens from PUIs for COVID-19, please see the CDC Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) website.

Microbiology Case Study: A 52 Year Old with a Liver Abscess

Clinical history

A 52 year old patient with a history of recent travel to India presented to interventional radiology from an outside hospital for aspiration of a liver abscess, and was subsequently returned to the outside hospital. The patient had spent 2 months in India before returning to the US, and about 1 month later developed right upper quadrant pain. Abdominal CT showed 2 cystic masses measuring 2-4cm. Aspiration of the cysts yielded 0.5mL of bloody fluid, which was sent for bacterial culture and smear. Infectious disease prescribed antimicrobial treatment consisted of ceftriaxone and metronidazole, followed by paromomycin and levofloxacin.

Laboratory findings

A gram smear of the patient’s liver mass aspirate showed few neutrophils and no bacteria. Culture of the aspirate showed no growth at 5 days. Multiple sets of blood cultures collected at the outside hospital all showed no growth at 5 days.

Image 1. *Entamoeba coli* trophozoite seen in the patient’s stool ova and parasite exam, demonstrating an eccentric karyosome and coarse, irregular peripheral chromatin.

A single ova and parasite exam of the patient’s stool was sent and showed few Entamoeba coli trophozoites. A sample of the patient’s blood was sent to the Mayo reference lab for serum Entamoeba histolytica antibody testing, which came back positive. Stool was sent for Entamoeba histolytica antigen testing which was negative.

Discussion

Entamoeba coli is a non-pathogenic protozoan that can exist as a commensal organism in the human gastrointestinal tract. This organism has not been established to have any disease causing effect per se, but its presence may indicate exposure to water sources that could contain parasitic organisms. (3)

Entamoeba histolytica, by contrast, is a parasitic protozoal pathogen. Most infections are asymptomatic, but they can manifest as amebic dysentery or extraintestinal disease. The most common extraintestinal manifestation is amebic liver abscesses.¹

Intestinal amebiasis occurs via ingestion of amebic cysts, typically through contaminated food or water, but also through other forms of fecal-oral contact. Infections are seen most commonly in areas with poor sanitation, but can be found in developed countries in patients who have migrated from or traveled to endemic areas.²

Once the amebic cysts pass into the small intestine, they form trophozoites, which are able to penetrate the mucous barrier of the gut and destroy intestinal epithelial cells. This leads to blood and mucus in the stool. (2) Once the amebae penetrate the gut wall, they are able to reach the blood and ascend through the portal system to the liver and form amebic liver abscesses.³

Clinical presentation of these abscesses typically includes right upper quadrant pain and fever in a patient with a history of travel to an endemic area. Serologic testing is used for confirmation if clinical presentation and imaging are suggestive, but this cannot distinguish between current infection and prior exposure, and up to 35 percent of uninfected inhabitants of endemic areas show positive serology.³ Stool microscopy may be the initial, and indeed only test available in some areas, but cannot differentiate E. histolytica from non-pathogenic E. dispar and E. moshkovskii strains.²

Image 2. E. histolytica trophozoite with ingested red blood cell, visible as a dark inclusion, as well as demonstrating a central karysome and fine, uniformly distributed chromatin. (CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/dpdx/amebiasis/index.html) Erythrophagocytosis is suggestive of E. histolytica.

Empiric treatment in the setting of consistent epidemiology, clinical picture, and radiology consists of metronidazole or tinidazole for tissue clearance followed by paromomycin, diiodohydroxyquin, or diloxanide furoate for intraluminal clearance.

Infectious diseases was taking care of this patient and decided her clinical syndrome is probably extraintestinal Entamoeba histolytica amoebiasis based on the results of the CT findings and the antibody in the right clinical setting. Although her stool ova and parasite only showed Entamoeba coli, she clearly has been exposed to contaminated food or water. In addition, the Entamoeba histolytica stool antigen was negative, but this can be an insensitive test.

References

Leder, Karin, and Peter F. Weller. “Extraintestinal Entamoeba histolytica amebiasis.” UpToDate, Wolters Kluwer, 27 Jan. 2020, http://www.uptodate.com/contents/extraintestinal-entamoeba-histolytica-amebiasis?search=entamoeba%20histolyticatreatment&topicRef=5727&source=see_link. Accessed 4 Feb. 2020.
Leder, Karin, and Peter F. Weller. “Intestinal Entamoeba histolytica amebiasis.” UpToDate, Wolters Kluwer, 27 Jan. 2020, http://www.uptodate.com/contents/intestinal-entamoeba-histolytica-amebiasis?search=entamoeba%20histolyticatreatment&source=search_result&selectedTitle=1~46&usage_type=default&display_rank. Accessed 4 Feb. 2020.
Weller, Peter F. “Nonpathogenic enteric protozoa.” UpToDate, Wolters Kluwer, 25 July 2019, http://www.uptodate.com/contents/nonpathogenic-enteric-protozoa?search=entamoeba%20coli%20treatment&source=search_result&selectedTitle=1~6&usage_type=default&display_rank=1. Accessed 4 Feb. 2020.

-Tom Koster, DO is a 1^st year Anatomic and Clinical Pathology Resident at the University of Vermont Medical Center.

-Christi Wojewoda, MD, is the Director of Clinical Microbiology at the University of Vermont Medical Center and an Associate Professor at the University of Vermont.

The Forensic Pathologist as Patient Advocate

Patient advocates are simply people who care about patients as fellow human beings enough to act on that care. Forensic pathology fascinates many people, but hardly anyone realizes how strongly forensic pathologists advocate for patients.

Forensic pathologists have the responsibility of identifying human remains and determining the cause and manner of death for individuals that die suddenly and unexpectedly. Most often, we accomplish this mission by performing an autopsy. Death makes many people uncomfortable, and we’re accustomed to grim jokes about their work when meeting someone. Typically these comments carry an undertone that because decedents cannot talk, we don’t need interpersonal skills. Not only is this untrue, comments such as these provide an educational opportunity.

It is true that our patients have already died, but the relatives of our patients are very much alive. Those relatives have needs that we work to provide and questions we strive to answer. The most common question relatives have is “Why did my loved one die?” which is precisely what the pathologist is working to determine. We regularly talk with relatives of decedents that we’ve examined. We can tell family members why death occurred, including any implications that the death has for remaining members of the family. We can also help families begin to work through the social and bureaucratic requirements that death brings for those still living, such as the need to make arrangements for the disposition of the body and the need for a death certificate. (For example, after a person dies, that person’s financial accounts are frozen until a death certificate becomes available to unlock the accounts.)

Forensic pathologists work to develop a good relationship with the decedent’s relatives. Because anger and bargaining are part of grieving, conversations with relatives sometimes begin as though the relative and the pathologist are adversaries, but with time and compassion, the relationship usually transforms into a more appropriate professional relationship. A particularly important aspect of family interactions is listening to a grieving relative, because listening with care helps someone who is grieving. Attempting to build a good relationship with the decedent’s relatives does not mean that the pathologist is a blind advocate for the family. We won’t change the cause of death so that the family can reap more financial benefit from the death, for example. Lies will not help someone pass through the process of grieving in a healthy way – truth, time, and patient, loving care are the necessary therapeutic measures.

In the case of homicides, forensic pathologists advocate for the decedent by calling the death what it is and then testifying to the medical facts of that death when a suspect is tried in court. The pathologist testifies to the medical aspects of what caused death without trying to ensure that the suspect is either convicted or acquitted. Trying to sway the jury’s verdict is the work of attorneys; presenting the medical facts of why and how the decedent died is the work of the pathologist.

Forensic pathologists advocate for public health by providing an accurate cause of death. Death certificate data provide an essential component for assessing public health, and those data are an important determinant for allocation of medical research funds and for interventions to improve public health.

Like other pathologists, forensic pathologists typically do their work quietly in the background, advocating for their unique patients in their own special way. People give little thought to professional interactions with a forensic pathologist until forced to do so; in that difficult time we try to serve as best we can.

-Gregory G. Davis, MD, FASCP graduated from Vanderbilt Medical School and trained in pathology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, followed by a fellowship in forensic pathology at the San Diego County Medical Examiner Office in San Diego, CA. Dr. Davis then joined the faculty at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, where he currently serves as a Professor and as Director of the Forensic Division of the Department of Pathology. Dr. Davis also serves as Chief Coroner/Medical Examiner for Jefferson County, Alabama, the county in which Birmingham is located. Dr. Davis has earned a Master of Science in Public Health from the UAB School of Public Health. His research interest is the application of epidemiology to the study and practice of forensic pathology, especially drug abuse. He has published 74 peer-reviewed manuscripts, including serving as lead author on the 2013 opioid position paper of the National Association of Medical Examiners. He is currently working as chair of a panel revising and updating the NAME opioid position paper for expected publication in 2020. He serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Forensic Sciences and Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology. Dr. Davis is a Fellow At-Large Director on the Board of Directors of the American Society for Clinical Pathology.