Ensuring accuracy in the development and application of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for infectious...

Diagnostic tests were heralded as crucial during the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic with most of the key methods using bioanalytical approaches that detected larger molecules (RNA, protein antigens or antibodies) rather than conventional clinical biochemical techniques. Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAATs), like the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), and other molecular methods, like sequencing (that often work in combination with NAATs), were essential to the diagnosis and management during COVID-19. This was exemplified both early in the pandemic but also later on, following the emergence of new genetic SARS-CoV-2 variants. The 100 day mission to respond to future pandemic threats highlights the need for effective diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines. Of the three, diagnostics represents the first opportunity to manage infectious diseases while also being the most poorly supported in terms of the infrastructure needed to demonstrate effectiveness. Where performance targets exist, they are not well served by consensus on how to demonstrate they are being met; this includes analytical factors such as limit of detection (LOD) false positive results as well as how to approach clinical evaluation. The selection of gold standards or use of epidemiological factors such as predictive value, reference ranges or clinical thresholds are seldom correctly considered. The attention placed on molecular diagnostic tests during COVID-19 illustrates important considerations and assumptions on the use of these methods for infectious disease diagnosis and beyond. In this manuscript, we discuss state-of-the-art approaches to diagnostic evaluation and explore how they may be better tailored to diagnostic techniques like NAATs to maximise the impact of these highly versatile bioanalytical tools, both generally and during future outbreaks.