Evaluation of the diagnostic performance of nine commercial RT-PCR kits for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Colombia.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hernandez C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8242747 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Evaluation of the diagnostic performance of nine commercial RT-PCR kits for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Colombia.
Hernández Carolina C Florez Carolina C Castañeda Sergio S Ballesteros Nathalia N Martínez David D Castillo Adriana A Muñoz Marina M Gomez Sergio S Rico Angelica A Pardo Liseth L Paniz-Mondolfi Alberto A Ramírez Juan David JD
Journal of medical virology 20210503 9
The ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has led to the design and development of multiple reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction kits aimed to facilitate the rapid scale-up of molecular testing for massive screening. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of nine commercial kits, which showed optimal performance and high discriminatory power. However, we observed differences in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and E gene Ct Values and discuss ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which has caused a global pandemic beginning in 2020, can be detected by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). However, owing to the urgent need for a large number of detection kits, the time spent researching and developing these kits has been shortened during the pandemic, and the kits that are being used commercially have not undergone full and independent evaluation. To ensure the accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 test results, performance verification of commercial Real-Time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) kits is required.MethodsThe performance of five commercial RT-qPCR diagnostic kits for SARS-CoV-2 used in China was evaluated using a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) RNA liquid performance verification reference product-manufactured by Guangzhou Bondson (BDS) Biotechnology Co., Ltd.,Guangzhou, China-that uses droplet digital RT-PCR technology combined with fluorescence quantitative PCR. The five kits of Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCoV nucleic acid detection kit (RT-qPCR method) evaluated were Da An (Da An Gene Co., Ltd. of Sun Yat-sen University), Liferiver (Shanghai ZJ Bio-Tech Co., Ltd.), Kinghawk (Beijing Kinghawk Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.), eDiagnosis (Wuhan Easy Diagnosis Biomedicine Co., Ltd.), and Maccura (Maccura Biotechnology Co., Ltd.). Performance verification criteria included the coincidence rate, limit of detection (LoD), cross-reactivity, precision, and anti-interference. Finally, through the BDS performance verification reference product kit, clinical samples are used to verify its clinical diagnostic efficacy.ResultsThe coincidence rate was 100% for all kits except for Kinghawk, which was 95%. The LoD for Da An, eDiagnosis and Maccura was 250copies/mL, and it was 1000 copies/ml for Liferiver. Kinghawk was not able to detect its advertised LoD of 500 copies/ml. The cross-reactivity test results were all negative. Moreover, all kits had a coefficient of variation less than 5%; however, Liferiver showed the best precision. Da An, Liferiver, and eDiagnosis showed higher sensitivity to the nucleocapsid (N) gene than they did to the open reading frame (ORF) 1ab genes. Anti-interference results for all five kits were positive. The results of clinical diagnostic efficacy were that the specificity of the four kits was 1.000 (0.877-1.000), the sensitivity of Da An was 1.000 (0.850-1.000), Liferiver was 0.964 (0.798-0.998), Maccura was 0.893 (0.706-0.972), and eDiagnosis was 0.857 (0.664-0.953).ConclusionsAll commercial RT-qPCR diagnostic kits for SARS-CoV-2 passed the BDS performance verification, except for Kinghawk (batch No:20200608113) which failed to detect the LoD of 500 copies/mL. Da An and Liferiver have excellent clinical diagnostic specificity and sensitivity. This study can provide guidance for the selection or optimization of RT-qPCR diagnostic test kits for SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC8662914 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a public health emergency. Although many reverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR) assays have been developed, their performance, especially sensitivity assessment, has been insufficiently tested. In this study, a preliminary comparison of the analytical sensitivity of nine RT-qPCR kits from different manufacturers was first conducted using a certified reference material derived from the genomic RNA of SARS-CoV-2 as the template. Subsequently, three of the nine kits, comprising two highly sensitive kits (DAAN, Huirui) and one less sensitive kit (Geneodx), were selected for further sensitivity and specificity validation. The results revealed variations in the performance between kits of the two groups. For the two highly sensitive kits, the limits of detection at 95 % probability (LOD95%) were 5.6 copies of the N gene and 3.5 copies of the ORF 1ab per reaction (DAAN), and 6.4 (N) and 4.6 (ORF 1ab) copies per reaction (Huirui). These LOD95% values were approximately 3 to 4-fold better than those of the Geneodx Kit. However, none of these three Kits showed cross-reactivity against 6 other types of human coronaviruses or respiratory viruses. Because most of these commercial kits are approved as in vitro diagnostics (testing specimens without direct human contact), it would be beneficial for their manufacturers to improve the diagnostic capability of these kits and thus reduce the clinical risks associated with false-negative results.
| S-EPMC8434693 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The final months of 2019 witnessed the emergence of a novel coronavirus in the human population. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has since spread across the globe and is posing a major burden on society. Measures taken to reduce its spread critically depend on timely and accurate identification of virus-infected individuals by the most sensitive and specific method available, i.e. real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR). Many commercial kits have recently become available, but their performance has not yet been independently assessed. The aim of this study was to compare basic analytical and clinical performance of selected RT-PCR kits from seven different manufacturers (Altona Diagnostics, BGI, CerTest Biotec, KH Medical, PrimerDesign, R-Biopharm AG, and Seegene). We used serial dilutions of viral RNA to establish PCR efficiency and estimate the 95 % limit of detection (LOD95). Furthermore, we ran a panel of SARS-CoV-2-positive clinical samples (n = 13) for a preliminary evaluation of clinical sensitivity. Finally, we used clinical samples positive for non-coronavirus respiratory viral infections (n = 6) and a panel of RNA from related human coronaviruses to evaluate assay specificity. PCR efficiency was ≥96 % for all assays and the estimated LOD95 varied within a 6-fold range. Using clinical samples, we observed some variations in detection rate between kits. Importantly, none of the assays showed cross-reactivity with other respiratory (corona)viruses, except as expected for the SARS-CoV-1 E-gene. We conclude that all RT-PCR kits assessed in this study may be used for routine diagnostics of COVID-19 in patients by experienced molecular diagnostic laboratories.
| S-EPMC7206434 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We compared the sensitivity and specificity of four commercial coronavirus disease (COVID-19) diagnostic kits using real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Kits I-IV approved by the State Drug Administration of China were selected, and the detection targets were ORF1ab gene and N gene. Specificity was evaluated by detecting other respiratory viruses. The sensitivity and batch effect of each kit were evaluated by testing 10-fold dilutions of RNA. Clinical application was verified by testing nasopharyngeal swab and sputum specimens from COVID-19 patients. Among the 78 cases infected by other respiratory viruses, no amplification curve was observed using these four COVID-19 RT-PCR kits. The minimum detection limits of kits I-IV were 10-6 , 10-5 , 10-5 , and 10-6 dilutions, respectively, and concentrations were 10 copies/mL (10-5 dilution) and 1 copies/mL (10-6 dilution). The sensitivities of kits I-IV detected using 142 nasopharyngeal swab specimens from COVID-19 patients were 91.55%, 81.69%, 80.28%, and 90.85%, respectively, while they were 92.68%, 85.37%, 82.93%, and 93.90%, respectively, for the 82 sputum samples. The specificity of each kit was 100.00% (77/77). The total expected detection rate using sputum samples was 88.59% (691/780) higher than 86.15% (672/780) of nasopharyngeal swabs. Comparison of nasopharyngeal swab and sputum samples from the same COVID-19 patient led to the detection of ORF1ab and N genes in 16 (100%) sputum samples; only ORF1ab and N genes were detected in 12 (75%) and 14 (87.5%) nasopharyngeal swab specimens, respectively. In conclusion, comparison of commercial COVID-19 RT-PCR kits should be performed before using a new batch of such kits in routine diagnostics.
| S-EPMC7843276 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Widespread testing for the presence of the novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals remains vital for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic prior to the advent of an effective treatment. Challenges in testing can be traced to an initial shortage of supplies, expertise, and/or instrumentation necessary to detect the virus by quantitative RT-PCR (RT-qPCR), the most robust, sensitive, and specific assay currently available. Here we show that academic biochemistry and molecular biology laboratories equipped with appropriate expertise and infrastructure can replicate commercially available SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR test kits and backfill pipeline shortages. The Georgia Tech COVID-19 Test Kit Support Group, composed of faculty, staff, and trainees across the biotechnology quad at Georgia Institute of Technology, synthesized multiplexed primers and probes and formulated a master mix composed of enzymes and proteins produced in-house. Our in-house kit compares favorably with a commercial product used for diagnostic testing. We also developed an environmental testing protocol to readily monitor surfaces for the presence of SARS-CoV-2. Our blueprint should be readily reproducible by research teams at other institutions, and our protocols may be modified and adapted to enable SARS-CoV-2 detection in more resource-limited settings.
| S-EPMC7667971 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic caused by Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) led to the rise of many available modalities for diagnosis. One such modality is the Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) kits which require evaluation amongst the many available commercial kits in the market.MethodsWe conducted a performance evaluation of twelve RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 commercial kits. A total of 75 nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal clinical samples were selected with their cycling threshold (Ct) values. Inclusion of 5 gene targets: E gene, N gene, S gene, RdRp and ORF1ab were assessed. Data was analyzed using R software version 4.1.1 and Microsoft Excel.ResultsWe observe that, the positive sample's Ct values differs significantly across the 12 diagnostic kits. However, for gene-specific analysis, we observe that, positive sample's Ct values does not differ significantly across gene targets. There is significant difference in Ct values in Commercial kits targeting all genes except S-gene. All the commercial kits Altona (E and S genes), Thermo (ORF1ab and N genes), Multiplex (E, ORF1ab, RdRdp genes), Meril (N and ORF1ab genes), S D Biosensor (E and ORF1ab genes), Lab Gun (RdRp and N genes) and Lab systems (ORF1ab and E genes) scored a sensitivity of 100%. All other kits scored sensitivity above 95% and lowest sensitivity with the Genes2me (E gene) and Genes2me (RdRp) at 95.08% each. All kits were 100% specific.ConclusionThis study provides an accurate comprehensive assessment of the different kits in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 which may promote standardization of testing across laboratories.
| S-EPMC8600795 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To meet the unprecedented requirement of diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2, a large number of diagnostic kits were authorized by concerned authorities for diagnostic use within a short period of time during the initial phases of the ongoing pandemic. We undertook this study to evaluate the inter-test agreement and other key operational features of 5 such commercial kits that have been extensively used in India for routine diagnostic testing for COVID-19. The five commercial kits were evaluated, using a panel of positive and negative respiratory samples, considering the kit provided by National Institute of Virology, Indian Council of Medical Research (2019-nCoV Kit) as the reference. The positive panel comprised of individuals who fulfilled the 3 criteria of being clinically symptomatic, having history of contact with diagnosed cases and testing positive in the reference kit. The negative panel included both healthy and disease controls, the latter being drawn from individuals diagnosed with other respiratory viral infections. The same protocol of sample collection, same RNA extraction kit and same RT-PCR instrument were used for all the kits. Clinical samples were collected from a panel of 92 cases and 60 control patients, who fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The control group included equal number of healthy individuals and patients infected with other respiratory viruses (n = 30, in each group). We observed varying sensitivity and specificity among the evaluated kits, with LabGun COVID-19 RT-PCR kit showing the highest sensitivity and specificity (94% and 100% respectively), followed by TaqPath COVID-19 Combo and Allplex 2019-nCoV assays. The extent of inter-test agreement was not associated with viral loads of the samples. Poor correlation was observed between Ct values of the same genes amplified using different kits. Our findings reveal the presence of wide heterogeneity and sub-optimal inter-test agreement in the diagnostic performance of the evaluated kits and hint at the need of adopting stringent standards for fulfilling the quality assurance requirements of the COVID-19 diagnostic process.
| S-EPMC8580981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to circulate, multiple variants of concern have emerged. New variants pose challenges for diagnostic platforms because sequence diversity can alter primer/probe-binding sites (PBSs), causing false-negative results. The MassARRAY SARS-CoV-2 Panel (Agena Bioscience) uses RT-PCR and mass spectrometry to detect five multiplex targets across N and ORF1ab genes. Herein, we use a data set of 256 SARS-CoV-2-positive specimens collected between April 11, 2021, and August 28, 2021, to evaluate target performance with paired sequencing data. During this time frame, two targets in the N gene (N2 and N3) were subject to the greatest sequence diversity. In specimens with N3 dropout, 69% harbored the Alpha-specific A28095U polymorphism that introduces a 3'-mismatch to the N3 forward PBS and increases risk of target dropout relative to specimens with 28095A (relative risk, 20.02; 95% CI, 11.36 to 35.72; P < 0.0001). Furthermore, among specimens with N2 dropout, 90% harbored the Delta-specific G28916U polymorphism that creates a 3'-mismatch to the N2 probe PBS and increases target dropout risk (relative risk, 11.92; 95% CI, 8.17 to 14.06; P < 0.0001). These findings highlight the robust capability of MassARRAY SARS-CoV-2 Panel target results to reveal circulating virus diversity, and they underscore the power of multitarget design to capture variants of concern.
| S-EPMC9067105 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We aimed to evaluate the LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay (DiaSorin), comparing its performance to real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. 182 (110 PCR-positive and 72 PCR-negative) nasopharyngeal swab samples were taken for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. RT-PCR and antigen assay were performed using the same material. The sensitivity and specificity of the antigen assay were calculated for different cut-offs, with RT-PCR serving as the reference method. Stored clinical samples that were positive for other respiratory viruses were tested to evaluate cross-reactivity. One third (33/110, 30%) were falsely classified as negative, while no false positives were found using the 200 TCID50/mL cut-off for the SARS-CoV-2 antigen as proposed by the manufacturer. This corresponded to a sensitivity of 70% (60-78%) and a specificity of 100% (94-100%). Lowering the cut-off for positivity of the antigen assay to 22.79 or 57.68 TCID50/mL increased the sensitivity of the method, reaching a sensitivity of 92% (85-96%) vs. 79% (70-86%) and a specificity of 81% (69-89%) vs. 99% (91-100%), respectively. The antigen assay reliably detected samples with high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads (≥106 copies SARS-CoV-2/mL), while it cannot differentiate between negative and low positive samples. Cross-reactivity toward other respiratory viruses was not detected.
| S-EPMC8228578 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe comparative performance of different clinical sampling methods for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR among populations with suspected infection remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of different clinical specimen collection methods.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and Research Square from Jan 1, 2000, to Nov 16, 2020. We included original clinical studies that examined the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs and any additional respiratory specimens for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals presenting in ambulatory care. Studies without data on paired samples, or those that only examined different samples from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases were not useful for examining diagnostic performance of a test and were excluded. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, was examined using random effects models and double arcsine transformation.FindingsOf the 5577 studies identified in our search, 23 studies including 7973 participants with 16 762 respiratory samples were included. Respiratory specimens examined in these studies included 7973 nasopharyngeal swabs, 1622 nasal swabs, 6110 saliva samples, 338 throat swabs, and 719 pooled nasal and throat swabs. Using nasopharyngeal swabs as the gold standard, pooled nasal and throat swabs gave the highest sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 93-100), whereas lower sensitivities were achieved by saliva (85%, 75-93) and nasal swabs (86%, 77-93) and a much lower sensitivity by throat swabs (68%, 35-94). A comparably high positive predictive value was obtained by pooled nasal and throat (97%, 90-100) and nasal swabs (96%, 87-100) and a slightly lower positive predictive value by saliva (93%, 88-97). Throat swabs have the lowest positive predictive value of 75% (95% CI 45-96). Comparably high specificities (range 97-99%) and negative predictive value (range 95-99%) were observed among different clinical specimens. Comparison between health-care-worker collection and self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs showed comparable diagnostic performance. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the analysis of pooled nasal and throat swabs and throat swabs, whereas moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I2 ≥30%) was observed in studies on saliva and nasal swabs.InterpretationOur review suggests that, compared with the gold standard of nasopharyngeal swabs, pooled nasal and throat swabs offered the best diagnostic performance of the alternative sampling approaches for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ambulatory care. Saliva and nasal swabs gave comparable and very good diagnostic performance and are clinically acceptable alternative specimen collection methods. Throat swabs gave a much lower sensitivity and positive predictive value and should not be recommended. Self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs was not associated with any significant impairment of diagnostic accuracy. Our results also provide a useful reference framework for the proper interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 testing results using different clinical specimens.FundingHong Kong Research Grants Council.
| S-EPMC8041361 | biostudies-literature