ABSTRACT
The present global pandemic triggered by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has lingered for over a year in its devastating effects. Diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently established with a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test by means of oropharyngeal-, nasopharyngeal-, anal-swabs, sputum and blood plasma. However, oral and nasal swabs are more commonly used. This study, therefore, assessed sensitivity and specificity of plasma as a diagnostic in comparison with a combination of oral and nasal swab samples, and the implications for blood transfusion. Oropharyngeal (OP) and nasopharyngeal (NP) swab samples were obtained from 125 individuals suspected to have COVID-19 and stored in viral transport medium (VTM) tubes. Ten millilitres of blood samples in EDTA were also obtained by venepuncture and spun to obtain plasma. Viral RNA was obtained from both swabs and plasma by manual extraction with Qiagen QIAamp viral RNA Mini Kit. Detection was done using a real time fluorescent RT-qPCR BGI kit, on a QuantStudio 3 real-time PCR instrument. Average age of study participants was 41 years, with 74 (59.2%) being male. Out of the 125 individuals tested for COVID-19, 75 (60%) were positive by OP/NP swab. However, only 6 (4.8%) had a positive plasma result for COVID-19 with median Ct value of 32.4. Sensitivity and specificity of RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 test using plasma was 8% and 100% respectively. There was no false positive recorded, but 69 (55.2%) false negatives were obtained by plasma. SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA was detected, albeit low (4.8%) in plasma. Plasma is likely not a suitable biological sample to diagnose acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. The implication of transfusing blood in this era of COVID-19 needs further investigations.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , RNA, Viral/analysis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nigeria/epidemiology , RNA, Viral/blood , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity , Young AdultABSTRACT
A key element in containing the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 infection is quality diagnostics which is affected by several factors. We now report the comparative performance of five real-time diagnostic assays. Nasopharyngeal swab samples were obtained from persons seeking a diagnosis for SARS-CoV-2 infection in Lagos, Nigeria. The comparison was performed on the same negative, low, and high-positive sample set, with viral RNA extracted using the Qiagen Viral RNA Kit. All five assays are one-step reverse transcriptase real-time PCR assays. Testing was done according to each assay's manufacturer instructions for use using real-time PCR platforms. 63 samples were tested using the five qPCR assays, comprising of 15 negative samples, 15 positive samples (Ct = 16-30; one Ct = 35), and 33 samples with Tib MolBiol E-gene Ct value ranging from 36-41. All assays detected all high positive samples correctly. Three assays correctly identified all negative samples while two assays each failed to correctly identify one different negative sample. The consistent detection of positive samples at different Ct/Cq values gives an indication of when to repeat testing and/or establish more stringent in-house cut-off value. The varied performance of different diagnostic assays, mostly with emergency use approvals, for a novel virus is expected. Comparative assays' performance reported may guide laboratories to determine both their repeat testing Ct/Cq range and/or cut-off value.