Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
J Clin Lab Anal ; 36(4): e24285, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1694764

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic in March 2020. Initially, supply chain disruptions and increased demand for testing led to shortages of critical laboratory reagents and inadequate testing capacity. Thus, alternative means of biosample collection and testing were essential to overcome these obstacles and reduce viral transmission. This study aimed to 1) compare the sensitivity and specificity of Cepheid GeneXpert® IV and BioFire® FilmArray® 2.0 next generation detection systems to detect SARS-CoV-2, 2) evaluate the performance of both platforms using different biospecimen types, and 3) assess saline as an alternative to viral transport media (VTM) for sample collection. METHODS: A total of 1,080 specimens consisting of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs in VTM, NP swabs in saline, nasal swabs, oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, and saliva were collected from 216 enrollees. Limit of detection (LoD) assays, NP VTM and NP saline concordance, and saliva testing were performed on the BioFire® FilmArray® 2.0 Respiratory Panel 2.1 and Cepheid GeneXpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV assays. RESULTS: LoD and comparative testing demonstrated increased sensitivity with the Cepheid compared with the BioFire® in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in NP VTM and saline, nasal, and OP swabs. Conversely, saliva testing on the Cepheid showed statistically significant lower sensitivity compared to the BioFire® . Finally, NP swabs in saline showed no significant difference compared with NP swabs in VTM on both platforms. CONCLUSION: The Cepheid and BioFire® NGDS are viable options to address a variety of public health needs providing rapid and reliable, point-of-care testing using a variety of clinical matrices.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , Humans , Nasopharynx , Saliva , Sensitivity and Specificity , Specimen Handling
2.
J Clin Virol ; 146: 105046, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1608466

ABSTRACT

We evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of the Biomeme Franklin™ three9 Real-Time PCR Thermocycler and Biomeme SARS-CoV-2 Go-Strips in the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The Biomeme Franklin™ three9 platform is a portable, battery-operated system that could be used in remote settings. We assessed performance of the Biomeme SARS-CoV-2 detection system at a wide range of viral concentrations, examined cross-reactivity of the SARS-CoV-2 Go-Strips against several near-neighbor respiratory pathogens, and evaluated agreement against the BioFire® Respiratory Panel 2.1 in four clinical sample types. Our data indicate the Biomeme Go-Strips can reliably detect SARS-CoV-2 at a concentration of 4.2 × 103 copies/mL. No cross reactivity of the Go-Strips targets was detected against any of the tested near-neighbor respiratory pathogens. Cohen's kappa statistics ranged from 0.68 to 0.92 between results from the Biomeme SARS-CoV-2 Go-Strips and the BioFire® Respiratory Panel 2.1 in all the different sample types. Compared to the BioFire® Respiratory Panel 2.1, the Biomeme SARS-CoV-2 Go-Strips demonstrated statistically significantly lower sensitivity in 3 out of 5 sample types. Overall, our study demonstrates the Biomeme Franklin™ three9 used with the SARS-CoV-2 Go-Strips is an effective system for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 that could potentially be used in a remote or austere environment.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Humans , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL