Comparison of a laboratory-developed test targeting the envelope gene with three nucleic acid amplification tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2

被引:33
|
作者
Bulterys, Philip L. [1 ]
Garamani, Natasha [1 ]
Stevens, Bryan [1 ,2 ]
Sahoo, Malaya K. [1 ]
Huang, ChunHong [1 ]
Hogan, Catherine A. [1 ,2 ]
Zehnder, James [1 ]
Pinsky, Benjamin A. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Stanford Univ, Dept Pathol, Sch Med, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[2] Stanford Hlth Care, Clin Virol Lab, Stanford, CA USA
[3] Stanford Univ, Dept Med, Div Infect Dis & Geog Med, Sch Med, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
关键词
SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Coronavirus; Diagnostics;
D O I
10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104427
中图分类号
Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 100705 ;
摘要
Background: Numerous nucleic acid amplification tests, including real-time, reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) and isothermal amplification methods, have been developed to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA, including many that have received emergency use authorization (EUA). There is a need to assess their test performance relative to one another. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the test performance of a high complexity laboratory-developed rRT-PCR EUA from Stanford Health Care (SHC) targeting the SARS-CoV-2 envelope (E) gene with other tests: the Atila isothermal amplification assay targeting the nucleocapsid (N) gene and open reading frame 1ab (ORF1ab), the Altona E and spike (S) multiplex, real-time RT-PCR, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) N1 and N2 rRT-PCRs. Study Design: A diagnostic comparison study was performed by testing nasopharyngeal samples from persons under investigation for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Assay performance was assessed by percent agreement and Cohen's kappa coefficient. Results: Positive percent agreement with the SHC EUA reference assay was 82.8 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 65.0 to 92.9) for Atila, 86.7 % (95 % CI 69.7 to 95.3) for the Altona E and S targets, and 86.7 % (95 % CI 69.7 to 95.3) and 90.0 % (95 % CI 73.6 to 97.3), for the CDC N1 and N2 targets, respectively. All assays demonstrated 100 % negative percent agreement. Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.86 to 0.92, indicating excellent agreement. Conclusions: Performance was comparable among the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification methods tested, with a limited number of discrepancies observed in specimens with low viral loads.
引用
收藏
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Analytical and Clinical Comparison of Three Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection
    Smith, Elizabeth
    Zhen, Wei
    Manji, Ryhana
    Schron, Deborah
    Duong, Scott
    Berry, Gregory J.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2020, 58 (09)
  • [2] Comparison of the Accula SARS-CoV-2 Test with a Laboratory-Developed Assay for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Clinical Nasopharyngeal Specimens
    Hogan, Catherine A.
    Garamani, Natasha
    Lee, Andrew S.
    Tung, Jack K.
    Sahoo, Malaya K.
    Huang, ChunHong
    Stevens, Bryan
    Zehnder, James
    Pinsky, Benjamin A.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2020, 58 (08)
  • [3] Comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2
    Dust, Kerry
    Hedley, Adam
    Nichol, Kim
    Stein, Derek
    Adam, Heather
    Karlowsky, James A.
    Bullard, Jared
    Van Caeseele, Paul
    Alexander, David C.
    JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS, 2020, 285
  • [4] Comparison of Commercially Available and Laboratory-Developed Assays for In Vitro Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Laboratories
    Lieberman, Joshua A.
    Pepper, Gregory
    Naccache, Samia N.
    Huang, Meei-Li
    Jerome, Keith R.
    Greninger, Alexander L.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2020, 58 (08)
  • [5] Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection from nasopharyngeal swab samples by the Roche cobas 6800 SARS-CoV-2 test and a laboratory-developed real-time RT-PCR test
    Pujadas, Elisabet
    Ibeh, Nnaemeka
    Hernandez, Matthew M.
    Waluszko, Aneta
    Sidorenko, Tatyana
    Flores, Vanessa
    Shiffrin, Biana
    Chiu, Numthip
    Young-Francois, Alicia
    Nowak, Michael D.
    Paniz-Mondolfi, Alberto E.
    Sordillo, Emilia M.
    Cordon-Cordo, Carlos
    Houldsworth, Jane
    Gitman, Melissa R.
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY, 2020, 92 (09) : 1695 - 1698
  • [6] Comparison of Two Commercial Molecular Tests and a Laboratory-Developed Modification of the CDC 2019-nCoV Reverse Transcriptase PCR Assay for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2
    Moore, Nicholas M.
    Li, Haiying
    Schejbal, Debra
    Lindsley, Jennifer
    Hayden, Mary K.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2020, 58 (08)
  • [7] Strategies That Facilitate Extraction-Free SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests
    Delgado-Diaz, David J.
    Sakthivel, Dhanasekaran
    Nguyen, Hanh H. T.
    Farrokzhad, Khashayar
    Hopper, William
    Narh, Charles A.
    Richards, Jack S.
    VIRUSES-BASEL, 2022, 14 (06):
  • [8] Nationwide external quality assessment of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests in Japan
    Asai, Satomi
    Seki, Akira
    Akai, Yasumasa
    Tazawa, Hiromitsu
    Kakizoe, Hidehumi
    Ravzanaaadii, Mend-Amar
    Miyachi, Hayato
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2022, 115 : 86 - 92
  • [9] Comparison of two nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) and two antigen tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 from upper respiratory specimens
    Kuo, Peiting
    Realegeno, Susan
    Pride, David T.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY PLUS, 2021, 1 (1-2):
  • [10] Analysis of sputum/tracheal aspirate and nasopharyngeal samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection by laboratory-developed test and Panther Fusion system
    Thwe, Phyu M.
    Ren, Ping
    DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE, 2021, 99 (01)