Cargando…

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Detection Systems Using Clinical Samples and Standard Material: A Comparative Study

Due to the decreasing trends in daily confirmed COVID-19 cases and daily confirmed tests, there is a need for a new testing system capable of quickly and efficiently testing small amounts of samples. Therefore, we compared and evaluated the testing performance of the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay, an auto...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Park, Sunggyun, Kim, Do-Hoon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10297697/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37370941
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13122046
_version_ 1785063943617642496
author Park, Sunggyun
Kim, Do-Hoon
author_facet Park, Sunggyun
Kim, Do-Hoon
author_sort Park, Sunggyun
collection PubMed
description Due to the decreasing trends in daily confirmed COVID-19 cases and daily confirmed tests, there is a need for a new testing system capable of quickly and efficiently testing small amounts of samples. Therefore, we compared and evaluated the testing performance of the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay, an automated testing system that allows continuous loading of samples, and the Real-Q Direct SARS-CoV-2 detection kit that is currently being used in our laboratory. We compared the results of the two testing systems using 259 residual individual nasopharyngeal specimens and 91 residual pooled nasopharyngeal specimens that were submitted for COVID-19 testing in January and February 2023. The 95% limit of detection (LoD) for the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay determined using reference material for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid was confirmed to be 17.793 copies/mL, while the LoD for the Real-Q Direct SARS-CoV-2 detection kit was determined to be 131.842 copies/mL for the RdRP gene and 241.77 copies/mL for the E gene. The comparative study using clinical specimens showed almost perfect agreement. Our data showed that the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay has a very low LoD. In addition, the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay and Real-Q Direct detection kit have comparable clinical performance for SARS-CoV-2 for individual and pooled samples.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10297697
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102976972023-06-28 Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Detection Systems Using Clinical Samples and Standard Material: A Comparative Study Park, Sunggyun Kim, Do-Hoon Diagnostics (Basel) Brief Report Due to the decreasing trends in daily confirmed COVID-19 cases and daily confirmed tests, there is a need for a new testing system capable of quickly and efficiently testing small amounts of samples. Therefore, we compared and evaluated the testing performance of the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay, an automated testing system that allows continuous loading of samples, and the Real-Q Direct SARS-CoV-2 detection kit that is currently being used in our laboratory. We compared the results of the two testing systems using 259 residual individual nasopharyngeal specimens and 91 residual pooled nasopharyngeal specimens that were submitted for COVID-19 testing in January and February 2023. The 95% limit of detection (LoD) for the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay determined using reference material for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid was confirmed to be 17.793 copies/mL, while the LoD for the Real-Q Direct SARS-CoV-2 detection kit was determined to be 131.842 copies/mL for the RdRP gene and 241.77 copies/mL for the E gene. The comparative study using clinical specimens showed almost perfect agreement. Our data showed that the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay has a very low LoD. In addition, the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay and Real-Q Direct detection kit have comparable clinical performance for SARS-CoV-2 for individual and pooled samples. MDPI 2023-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10297697/ /pubmed/37370941 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13122046 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Brief Report
Park, Sunggyun
Kim, Do-Hoon
Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Detection Systems Using Clinical Samples and Standard Material: A Comparative Study
title Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Detection Systems Using Clinical Samples and Standard Material: A Comparative Study
title_full Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Detection Systems Using Clinical Samples and Standard Material: A Comparative Study
title_fullStr Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Detection Systems Using Clinical Samples and Standard Material: A Comparative Study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Detection Systems Using Clinical Samples and Standard Material: A Comparative Study
title_short Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Detection Systems Using Clinical Samples and Standard Material: A Comparative Study
title_sort evaluation of sars-cov-2 detection systems using clinical samples and standard material: a comparative study
topic Brief Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10297697/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37370941
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13122046
work_keys_str_mv AT parksunggyun evaluationofsarscov2detectionsystemsusingclinicalsamplesandstandardmaterialacomparativestudy
AT kimdohoon evaluationofsarscov2detectionsystemsusingclinicalsamplesandstandardmaterialacomparativestudy