Analytical comparisons of SARS-COV-2 detection by qRT-PCR and ddPCR with multiple primer/probe sets.

Different primers/probes sets have been developed all over the world for the nucleic acid detection of SARS-CoV-2 by quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) as a standard method. In our recent study, we explored the feasibility of droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) for clinical SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection compared with qRT-PCR using the same primer/probe sets issued by Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) targeting viral ORF1ab or N gene, which showed that ddPCR could largely minimize the false negatives reports resulted by qRT-PCR [Suo T, Liu X, Feng J, et al. ddPCR: a more sensitive and accurate tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection in low viral load specimens. medRxiv [Internet]. 2020;2020.02.29.20029439. Available from: https://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/03/06/2020.02.29.20029439.abstract]. Here, we further stringently compared the performance of qRT-PCR and ddPCR for 8 primer/probe sets with the same clinical samples and conditions. Results showed that none of 8 primer/probe sets used in qRT-PCR could significantly distinguish true negatives and positives with low viral load (10-4 dilution). Moreover, false positive reports of qRT-PCR with UCDC-N1, N2 and CCDC-N primers/probes sets were observed. In contrast, ddPCR showed significantly better performance in general for low viral load samples compared to qRT-PCR. Remarkably, the background readouts of ddPCR are relatively lower, which could efficiently reduce the production of false positive reports.

ddPCR: a more accurate tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection in low viral load specimens.

Quantitative real time PCR (RT-PCR) is widely used as the gold standard for clinical detection of SARS-CoV-2. However, due to the low viral load specimens and the limitations of RT-PCR, significant numbers of false negative reports are inevitable, which results in failure to timely diagnose, cut off transmission, and assess discharge criteria. To improve this situation, an optimized droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) was used for detection of SARS-CoV-2, which showed that the limit of detection of ddPCR is significantly lower than that of RT-PCR. We further explored the feasibility of ddPCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA from 77 patients, and compared with RT-PCR in terms of the diagnostic accuracy based on the results of follow-up survey. 26 patients of COVID-19 with negative RT-PCR reports were reported as positive by ddPCR. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and accuracy were improved from 40% (95% CI: 27-55%), 100% (95% CI: 54-100%), 100%, 16% (95% CI: 13-19%), 0.6 (95% CI: 0.48-0.75) and 47% (95% CI: 33-60%) for RT-PCR to 94% (95% CI: 83-99%), 100% (95% CI: 48-100%), 100%, 63% (95% CI: 36-83%), 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02-0.18), and 95% (95% CI: 84-99%) for ddPCR, respectively. Moreover, 6/14 (42.9%) convalescents were detected as positive by ddPCR at 5-12 days post discharge. Overall, ddPCR shows superiority for clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 to reduce the false negative reports, which could be a powerful complement to the RT-PCR.