» Articles » PMID: 35709204

Clinical Evaluation of the Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH): A Point-of-care PCR Test for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Abstract

Background: An ideal test for COVID-19 would combine the sensitivity of laboratory-based PCR with the speed and ease of use of point-of-care (POC) or home-based rapid antigen testing. We evaluated clinical performance of the Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH) SARS-CoV-2 POC rapid PCR test.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of adults with and without symptoms of COVID-19 at four clinical sites where we collected two bilateral anterior nasal swabs and information on COVID-19 symptoms, vaccination, and exposure. One swab was tested with the DASH SARS-CoV-2 POC PCR and the second in a central laboratory using Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 PCR. We assessed test concordance and calculated sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values using Xpert as the "gold standard".

Results: We enrolled 315 and analyzed 313 participants with median age 42 years; 65% were female, 62% symptomatic, 75% had received ≥2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and 16% currently SARS-CoV-2 positive. There were concordant results for 307 tests indicating an overall agreement for DASH of 0.98 [95% CI 0.96, 0.99] compared to Xpert. DASH performed at 0.96 [95% CI 0.86, 1.00] sensitivity and 0.98 [95% CI 0.96, 1.00] specificity, with a positive predictive value of 0.85 [95% CI 0.73, 0.96] and negative predictive value of 0.996 [95% CI 0.99, 1.00]. The six discordant tests between DASH and Xpert all had high Ct values (>30) on the respective positive assay. DASH and Xpert Ct values were highly correlated (R = 0.89 [95% CI 0.81, 0.94]).

Conclusions: DASH POC SARS-CoV-2 PCR was accurate, easy to use, and provided fast results (approximately 15 minutes) in real-life clinical settings with an overall performance similar to an EUA-approved laboratory-based PCR.

Citing Articles

High-sensitivity detection of DNA in tongue swab samples.

Olson A, Wood R, Weigel K, Yan A, Lochner K, Dragovich R J Clin Microbiol. 2025; 63(2):e0114024.

PMID: 39745422 PMC: 11837540. DOI: 10.1128/jcm.01140-24.


Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from tongue swabs using sonication and sequence-specific hybridization capture.

Yan A, Olson A, Weigel K, Luabeya A, Heiniger E, Hatherill M PLoS One. 2024; 19(8):e0308235.

PMID: 39146324 PMC: 11326604. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308235.


High-sensitivity detection of DNA in tongue swab samples.

Olson A, Wood R, Weigel K, Yan A, Lochner K, Dragovich R medRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39108520 PMC: 11302704. DOI: 10.1101/2024.07.26.24311064.


Evaluation of the analytical performance of the 15-minute point-of-care DASH™ SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR test.

Butzler M, Reed J, Knapton K, Afzal T, Agarwal A, Schaeffer J Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2023; 108(1):116120.

PMID: 37898036 PMC: 10842742. DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2023.116120.


The Future of Point-of-Care Nucleic Acid Amplification Diagnostics after COVID-19: Time to Walk the Walk.

Diego J, Fernandez-Soto P, Muro A Int J Mol Sci. 2022; 23(22).

PMID: 36430586 PMC: 9693045. DOI: 10.3390/ijms232214110.

References
1.
Deslandes V, Clark E, Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Desjardins M . Implementation of the Abbott ID Now COVID-19 assay at a tertiary care center: a prospective pragmatic implementation study during the third wave of SARS-CoV-2 in Ontario. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021; 102(3):115609. PMC: 8626348. DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115609. View

2.
Matsuda E, de Campos I, de Oliveira I, Colpas D, Carmo A, Brigido L . Field evaluation of COVID-19 antigen tests versus RNA based detection: Potential lower sensitivity compensated by immediate results, technical simplicity, and low cost. J Med Virol. 2021; 93(7):4405-4410. PMC: 8250877. DOI: 10.1002/jmv.26985. View

3.
Stemler J, Kramer T, Dimitriou V, Wieland U, Schumacher S, Sprute R . Mobile PCR-based surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 to reduce visiting restrictions in nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a pilot study. Infection. 2021; 50(3):607-616. PMC: 8527812. DOI: 10.1007/s15010-021-01716-4. View

4.
Kendall E, Arinaminpathy N, Sacks J, Manabe Y, Dittrich S, Schumacher S . Antigen-based Rapid Diagnostic Testing or Alternatives for Diagnosis of Symptomatic COVID-19: A Simulation-based Net Benefit Analysis. Epidemiology. 2021; 32(6):811-819. PMC: 8478097. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001400. View

5.
Nikolai O, Rohardt C, Tobian F, Junge A, Corman V, Jones T . Anterior nasal versus nasal mid-turbinate sampling for a SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test: does localisation or professional collection matter?. Infect Dis (Lond). 2021; 53(12):947-952. PMC: 8425459. DOI: 10.1080/23744235.2021.1969426. View