ABSTRACT
La explosión de casos de COVID-19 resaltó el papel fundamental que desempeñan las pruebas de diagnóstico en la toma de decisiones médicas y de salud pública, para contener y mitigar la pandemia de SARS-CoV-2. Este estudio reporta la evaluación e implementación de diferentes tests para la detección molecular de SARS-CoV-2 en la región central de Argentina. Evaluamos 3 kits de RT-PCR en tiempo real (GeneFinder COVID-19 Plus RealAmp Kit, DisCoVery SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Detection kit y WGene SARS-CoV-2 RT Detection), 2 métodos de extracción de ácidos nucleicos [MagaBio plus Virus DNA/RNA Purification Kit II (BioFlux), 35-minutes vs. 9-minutes], un reactivo pre-analítico (FlashPrep®) y 2 tests de amplificación isotérmica (Neokit Plus and ELA CHEMSTRIP®). El orden de rendimiento de los 3 kits de RT-PCR en tiempo real evaluados fue el siguiente: DisCoVery>GeneFinderTM>WGene. Los 2 métodos de extracción de RNA mostraron buenos y similares resultados;se seleccionó MagaBio plus Virus RNA Purification Kit II (BioFlux) 9-min debido a su rápido tiempo de procesamiento. El reactivo FlashPrep® mostró excelente resultado para realizar detección directa de RNA. Los ensayos de amplificación isotérmica mostraron valores de sensibilidad y especificidad aceptables (>80%), excepto en muestras con Ct>30. Nuestros resultados muestran kits de RT-PCR en tiempo real óptimos, como así también métodos moleculares alternativos para el diagnóstico de SARS-CoV-2 que resultan aceptables para su uso en contextos adversos, de descentralización y en diferentes escenarios epidemiológicos, para la detección rápida y precisa del SARS-CoV-2.
ABSTRACT
The rocketing number of COVID-19 cases highlighted the critical role that diagnostic tests play in medical and public health decision-making to contain and mitigate the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This study reports the evaluation and implementation of different tests for the molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 in the central region of Argentina. We evaluated 3 real time RT-PCR kits (GeneFinder COVID-19 Plus RealAmp Kit, DisCoVery SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Detection Kit and WGene SARS-CoV-2 RT Detection), 2 nucleic acid extraction methods [MagaBio plus Virus DNA/RNA Purification Kit II (BioFlux), 35-min vs. 9-min], a pre-analytical reagent (FlashPrep®) and 2 isothermal amplification tests (Neokit Plus and ELA CHEMSTRIP®). The order according to the best performance of the 3 real-time RT-PCR kits evaluated was: DisCoVery>GeneFinderTM>WGene. The 2 RNA extraction methods showed similar good results: MagaBio plus Virus RNA Purification Kit II (BioFlux) 9-min was selected due to its faster performance. FlashPrep® reagent showed excellent results to perform direct RNA detection. Isothermal amplification assays showed acceptable sensitivity and specificity values (>80%), except in samples with Ct>30. Our data show optimal real time RT-PCR kits and alternative molecular methods for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic. These alternative assays proved to be acceptable for their use in adverse contexts, decentralization, and different epidemiological scenarios, for rapid and accurate SARS-CoV-2 detection.
ABSTRACT
Although the nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, the Nasal Mid-Turbinate swab (NMTS) is often used due to its higher tolerance among patients. We compared the diagnostic performance of the NPS and the NMTS for the Panbio™ COVID-19 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). Two hundred and forty-three individuals were swabbed three times by healthcare professionals: a NMTS and a NPS specimen for the Ag-RDT and an oropharyngeal swab for real time RT-PCR. Forty-nine participants were RNA-SARS-CoV-2 positive by real time RT-PCR: 45 and 40 were positive by the Ag-RDT with NPS and NMTS, respectively. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 91.8% (95% CI: 83.2-100.0) and 99.5% (95% CI: 98.2-100.0) for Ag-RDT with NPS, and 81.6% (95% CI: 69.8-93.5) and 100.0% (95% CI: 99.7-100.0) for the Ag-RDT with NMTS. The Cohen's kappa index was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85-0.98). Among asymptomatic individuals, the Ag-RDT with both sampling techniques showed a high sensitivity [100.0% (95% CI: 95.5-100.0) with NPS; 90.9% (95% CI: 69.4-100.0) with NMTS], while the performance of the test decreased in samples with Ct≥ 30 and in patients tested after the first 7 days from symptom onset. Although the NMTS yielded a lower sensitivity compared to NPS, it might be considered a reliable alternative, as it presents greater adherence among patients, enabling scaling of antigen testing strategies, particularly in countries with under-resourced health systems.