Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Performance of an alternative RT-PCR procedure using residual sample from the Panbio™ Ag COVID-19 test.
Castineiras, Terezinha Marta Pereira Pinto; Nascimento, Érica Ramos Dos Santos; Faffe, Débora Souza; Galliez, Rafael Mello; Mariani, Diana; Leitão, Isabela de Carvalho; de Melo, Mayla Gabryele Miranda; Ferreira, Orlando Costa; Tanuri, Amilcar.
  • Castineiras TMPP; Department of Infectious Disease, Scholl of Medicine, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  • Nascimento ÉRDS; Department of Genetic, Institute of Biology, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  • Faffe DS; Biophysics Institute, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  • Galliez RM; Department of Infectious Disease, Scholl of Medicine, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  • Mariani D; Department of Genetic, Institute of Biology, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  • Leitão IC; Biophysics Institute, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  • de Melo MGM; School of Medicine, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  • Ferreira OC; Department of Genetic, Institute of Biology, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  • Tanuri A; Department of Genetic, Institute of Biology, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Electronic address: Atanuri1@gmail.com.
Braz J Infect Dis ; 25(5): 101630, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1604138
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

In the current standard of care (SoC) RT-PCR method for COVID-19, the patient's swab was extracted in viral transport media (VTM). For the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test, the patient swab is flushed out in extraction buffer, of which a small fraction is used for testing, leaving more than half the sample unused. This study was designed to show that RT-PCR results from the residual sample of the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (called Novel RT-PCR) are not worse than the SoC RT-PCR result.

METHODS:

The study was performed using (1) dilution series of five patient samples, and (2) 413 patient samples comparing SOC versus Novel RT-PCR results.

RESULTS:

For the dilution series samples, all tested positive by both methods. The bias between Ct values of Novel RT-PCR and SoC RT-PCR did not exceed 3.00 Ct using primers N1 and N2. A total of 413 COVID symptomatic patients seeking COVID testing were tested, of which 89 patients tested positive and 324 tested negative with SoC RT-PCR. In 324 patients who tested negative with SoC RT-PCR, 323 tested negative with Novel RT-PCR, and one (1) tested positive. Out of 89 who tested positive with SoC RT-PCR, 80 tested positive with the Novel RT-PCR, and nine patients showed a negative test result. The Overall Percent Agreement for the 413 valid patient sample pairs was 97.5 [95% CI 97 to 98].

CONCLUSION:

The study demonstrated that the performance of the Novel RT-PCR method is acceptable compared to the SoC RT-PCR method and can be a useful tool to perform RT-PCR without the need for new swab collections.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: COVID-19 Type of study: Diagnostic study Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Braz J Infect Dis Journal subject: Communicable Diseases Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: J.bjid.2021.101630

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: COVID-19 Type of study: Diagnostic study Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Braz J Infect Dis Journal subject: Communicable Diseases Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: J.bjid.2021.101630