Performance evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx® Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the QIAstat-Dx® Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel (QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2), which is a closed, fully automated, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay that detects severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and 21 other pathogens that cause respiratory disease. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs from patients with or suspected of having coronavirus disease 2019 were collected and tested at Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, France. Using the World Health Organisation-approved real-time-PCR assay developed by the Charité Institute of Virology as the reference, positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 189 negative and 88 positive samples were analyzed. QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 had an NPA of 90.48% (95% confidence interval (CI), 85.37%, 94.26%) and a PPA of 94.32% (95% CI, 87.24%, 98.13%). Co-infections were detected by QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 in 4/277 specimens. The methods exhibited comparable failure rates (23/307 [7.5%] vs. 6/298 [2.0%] for QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 and reference methods, respectively). The turnaround time was shorter for QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 compared with the reference method (difference in mean -14:30 h [standard error, 0:03:23; 95% CI, -14:37, -14:24]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 shows good agreement with the reference assay, providing faster and accurate results for detecting SARS-CoV-2.

High-sensitivity SARS-CoV-2 group testing by digital PCR among symptomatic patients in hospital settings.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide demand for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing is still high as testing remains central to follow the disease spread and vaccine efficacy. Group testing has been proposed as a solution to expand testing capabilities but sensitivity concerns may limit its impact on the management of the pandemic. Digital PCR (RT-dPCR) has been shown to be highly sensitive and could help by providing larger testing capabilities without compromising sensitivity. METHODS: We implemented RT-dPCR based COVID-19 group testing on a commercially available system and assay (naica® system from Stilla Technologies) and investigated the sensitivity of the method in real life conditions of a university hospital in Paris, France, in May 2020. We tested the protocol in a direct comparison with reference RT-PCR testing on 448 samples split into groups of 8, 16 and 32 samples for RT-dPCR analysis. RESULTS: Individual RT-PCR testing identified 25/448 positive samples. Using 56 groups of 8, RT-dPCR identified 23 groups as positive, corresponding to 26 positive samples by individual PCR (positive percentage agreement 95.2% [95% confidence interval: 76.2-99.9%]) and including 2 samples not detected by individual RT-PCR but confirmed positive by further investigation. 15 of 28 groups of 16 tested positive, corresponding to 25 positive samples by individual PCR (positive percentage agreement 87.5% [95% confidence interval: 61.7-98.4%]). 14 groups of 32 were fully concordant with individual PCR testing but will need to be confirmed on larger datasets. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed approach of group testing by digital PCR has similar diagnostic sensitivity compared to individual RT-PCR testing for group up to 16 samples. This approach reduces the quantity of reagent needed by up to 80% while reducing costs and increasing capabilities of testing up to 10-fold.

Evaluation of the RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR kit RUO performances and limit of detection.

BACKGROUND: The use of efficient, reliable and sensitive PCR assays is a cornerstone in the race to contain the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In this work we performed an independent evaluation of the RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Kit Researh Use Only (Altona) for SARS-CoV-2 detection. METHODS: A comparative limit of detection (LoD) assessment was performed between RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 and the currently WHO recommended RT-PCR (WHO-PCR) workflow using a quantified clinical sample. Assessment of the RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 assay was also performed using 83 primary clinical samples in comparison with the WHO-PCR. RESULTS: The RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 demonstrated a slightly higher sensitivity than the WHO recommended assay with a limit of detection at 625 copies/mL instead of 1250 copies/mL for the WHO-PCR in our conditions. The overall percent agreement between RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 and WHO-PCR on 83 clinical samples was 97.6 % (81/83) with a sensitivity at 97.8 % (45/46) and specificity at 97.3 % (36/37). No cross reaction was encountered for the other human coronaviruses (HKU1, OC43, NL63, 229E). CONCLUSIONS: In this comparison of the RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 assay with the reference WHO assay, we observed a slightly better sensitivity of the RealStar® assay. It provides a robust option for all molecular biology laboratories, with a strong real-life LoD and is compatible with various real-time PCR platforms.