Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Arch Virol ; 166(9): 2551-2561, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1309044

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to identify and validate a sensitive, high-throughput, and cost-effective SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT-PCR assay to be used as a surveillance and diagnostic tool for SARS-CoV-2 in a university surveillance program. We conducted a side-by-side clinical evaluation of a newly developed SARS-CoV-2 multiplex assay (EZ-SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time RT-PCR) with the commercial TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit, which has an Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA. The EZ-SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR incorporates two assays targeting the SARS-CoV-2 N gene, an internal control targeting the human RNase P gene, and a PCR inhibition control in a single reaction. Nasopharyngeal (NP) and anterior nares (AN) swabs were tested as individuals and pools with both assays and in the ABI 7500 Fast and the QuantStudio 5 detection platforms. The analytical sensitivity of the EZ-SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay was 250 copies/ml or approximately 1.75 genome copy equivalents per reaction. The clinical performance of the EZ-SARS-CoV-2 assay was evaluated using NP and AN samples tested in other laboratories. The diagnostic sensitivity of the assay ranged between 94 and 96% across the detection platforms, and the diagnostic specificity was 94.06%. The positive predictive value was 94%, and the negative predictive value ranged from 94 to 96%. Pooling five NP or AN specimens yielded 93% diagnostic sensitivity. The overall agreement between these SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays was high, supported by a Cohen's kappa value of 0.93. The EZ-SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay performance attributes of high sensitivity and specificity with AN sample matrix and pooled upper respiratory samples support its use in a high-throughput surveillance testing program.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/genetics , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/economics , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/instrumentation , Epidemiological Monitoring , Gene Expression , Humans , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction/economics , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction/instrumentation , Nasal Cavity/virology , Nasopharynx/virology , Phosphoproteins/genetics , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and Specificity , Specimen Handling/methods , Viral Load
2.
J Appl Lab Med ; 5(6): 1307-1312, 2020 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-696741

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Numerous nucleic acid amplification assays utilizing different target genes of the SARS-CoV-2 genome have received emergency use authorization (EUA) by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Limited data are available comparing the test performance characteristics of these assays. METHODS: A diagnostic comparison study was performed to evaluate the performance of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay compared to the Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay using clinical nasopharyngeal specimens. Agreement between the two assays was assessed by overall, positive, and negative percent agreement and Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 104 (54 positive and 50 negative) clinical nasopharyngeal samples were tested by both assays. Using the Panther Fusion as a reference standard, the Xpert demonstrated an overall agreement of 99.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 94.8-100], positive percent agreement of 98.1% (95% CI: 90.1-100), and a negative percent agreement of 100% (95% CI: 94.2-100). The kappa coefficient was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.94-1.0). One sample positive by the Panther Fusion with a cycle threshold (Ct) of 38.6 was found to be reproducibly negative by the Xpert assay. CONCLUSIONS: The Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay provides test performance comparable to the Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay while offering laboratories rapid, on-demand testing capacity.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/instrumentation , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/instrumentation , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , Automation, Laboratory/instrumentation , Betacoronavirus/genetics , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Humans , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/statistics & numerical data , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction/instrumentation , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Point-of-Care Systems/statistics & numerical data , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic/statistics & numerical data , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/instrumentation , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , United States/epidemiology
3.
Euro Surveill ; 25(24)2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-605372

ABSTRACT

Containment strategies and clinical management of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients during the current pandemic depend on reliable diagnostic PCR assays for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Here, we compare 11 different RT-PCR test systems used in seven diagnostic laboratories in Germany in March 2020. While most assays performed well, we identified detection problems in a commonly used assay that may have resulted in false-negative test results during the first weeks of the pandemic.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/genetics , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Diagnostic Equipment , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/instrumentation , Feces/virology , Germany , Humans , Laboratories , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction/instrumentation , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Pandemics , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/instrumentation , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/instrumentation , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
4.
J Clin Microbiol ; 58(5)2020 04 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-209223

ABSTRACT

The QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel (QIAstat-Dx RP) is a multiplex in vitro diagnostic test for the qualitative detection of 20 pathogens directly from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens. The assay is performed using a simple sample-to-answer platform with results available in approximately 69 min. The pathogens identified are adenovirus, coronavirus 229E, coronavirus HKU1, coronavirus NL63, coronavirus OC43, human metapneumovirus A and B, influenza A, influenza A H1, influenza A H3, influenza A H1N1/2009, influenza B, parainfluenza virus 1, parainfluenza virus 2, parainfluenza virus 3, parainfluenza virus 4, rhinovirus/enterovirus, respiratory syncytial virus A and B, Bordetella pertussis, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae This multicenter evaluation provides data obtained from 1,994 prospectively collected and 310 retrospectively collected (archived) NPS specimens with performance compared to that of the BioFire FilmArray Respiratory Panel, version 1.7. The overall percent agreement between QIAstat-Dx RP and the comparator testing was 99.5%. In the prospective cohort, the QIAstat-Dx RP demonstrated a positive percent agreement of 94.0% or greater for the detection of all but four analytes: coronaviruses 229E, NL63, and OC43 and rhinovirus/enterovirus. The test also demonstrated a negative percent agreement of ≥97.9% for all analytes. The QIAstat-Dx RP is a robust and accurate assay for rapid, comprehensive testing for respiratory pathogens.


Subject(s)
Bacteria/isolation & purification , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Nasopharynx/microbiology , Nasopharynx/virology , Viruses/isolation & purification , Bacterial Infections/diagnosis , Bacterial Infections/microbiology , Humans , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/instrumentation , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction/instrumentation , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Tract Infections/diagnosis , Respiratory Tract Infections/microbiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/virology , Retrospective Studies , Virus Diseases/diagnosis , Virus Diseases/microbiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL