Cargando…

Comparison of Commercially Available and Laboratory-Developed Assays for In Vitro Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Laboratories

Multiple laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) and commercially available assays have emerged to meet diagnostic needs related to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. To date, there is limited comparison data for these different testing platforms. We compared the an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lieberman, Joshua A., Pepper, Gregory, Naccache, Samia N., Huang, Meei-Li, Jerome, Keith R., Greninger, Alexander L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Society for Microbiology 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7383518/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32350048
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00821-20
_version_ 1783563433987276800
author Lieberman, Joshua A.
Pepper, Gregory
Naccache, Samia N.
Huang, Meei-Li
Jerome, Keith R.
Greninger, Alexander L.
author_facet Lieberman, Joshua A.
Pepper, Gregory
Naccache, Samia N.
Huang, Meei-Li
Jerome, Keith R.
Greninger, Alexander L.
author_sort Lieberman, Joshua A.
collection PubMed
description Multiple laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) and commercially available assays have emerged to meet diagnostic needs related to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. To date, there is limited comparison data for these different testing platforms. We compared the analytical performance of a LDT developed in our clinical laboratory based on CDC primer sets and four commercially available, FDA emergency use authorized assays for SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid, DiaSorin, Hologic Panther, and Roche Cobas) on a total of 169 nasopharyngeal swabs. The LDT and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assays were the most sensitive assays for SARS-CoV-2 with 100% agreement across specimens. The Hologic Panther Fusion, DiaSorin Simplexa, and Roche Cobas 6800 failed to detect positive specimens only near the limit of detection of our CDC-based LDT assay. All assays were 100% specific, using our CDC-based LDT as the gold standard. Our results provide initial test performance characteristics for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) and highlight the importance of having multiple viral detection testing platforms available in a public health emergency.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7383518
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher American Society for Microbiology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73835182020-07-31 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. J Clin Microbiol Virology Multiple laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) and commercially available assays have emerged to meet diagnostic needs related to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. To date, there is limited comparison data for these different testing platforms. We compared the analytical performance of a LDT developed in our clinical laboratory based on CDC primer sets and four commercially available, FDA emergency use authorized assays for SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid, DiaSorin, Hologic Panther, and Roche Cobas) on a total of 169 nasopharyngeal swabs. The LDT and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assays were the most sensitive assays for SARS-CoV-2 with 100% agreement across specimens. The Hologic Panther Fusion, DiaSorin Simplexa, and Roche Cobas 6800 failed to detect positive specimens only near the limit of detection of our CDC-based LDT assay. All assays were 100% specific, using our CDC-based LDT as the gold standard. Our results provide initial test performance characteristics for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) and highlight the importance of having multiple viral detection testing platforms available in a public health emergency. American Society for Microbiology 2020-07-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7383518/ /pubmed/32350048 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00821-20 Text en Copyright © 2020 Lieberman et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Virology
Lieberman, Joshua A.
Pepper, Gregory
Naccache, Samia N.
Huang, Meei-Li
Jerome, Keith R.
Greninger, Alexander L.
Comparison of Commercially Available and Laboratory-Developed Assays for In Vitro Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Laboratories
title Comparison of Commercially Available and Laboratory-Developed Assays for In Vitro Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Laboratories
title_full Comparison of Commercially Available and Laboratory-Developed Assays for In Vitro Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Laboratories
title_fullStr Comparison of Commercially Available and Laboratory-Developed Assays for In Vitro Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Laboratories
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Commercially Available and Laboratory-Developed Assays for In Vitro Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Laboratories
title_short Comparison of Commercially Available and Laboratory-Developed Assays for In Vitro Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Laboratories
title_sort comparison of commercially available and laboratory-developed assays for in vitro detection of sars-cov-2 in clinical laboratories
topic Virology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7383518/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32350048
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00821-20
work_keys_str_mv AT liebermanjoshuaa comparisonofcommerciallyavailableandlaboratorydevelopedassaysforinvitrodetectionofsarscov2inclinicallaboratories
AT peppergregory comparisonofcommerciallyavailableandlaboratorydevelopedassaysforinvitrodetectionofsarscov2inclinicallaboratories
AT naccachesamian comparisonofcommerciallyavailableandlaboratorydevelopedassaysforinvitrodetectionofsarscov2inclinicallaboratories
AT huangmeeili comparisonofcommerciallyavailableandlaboratorydevelopedassaysforinvitrodetectionofsarscov2inclinicallaboratories
AT jeromekeithr comparisonofcommerciallyavailableandlaboratorydevelopedassaysforinvitrodetectionofsarscov2inclinicallaboratories
AT greningeralexanderl comparisonofcommerciallyavailableandlaboratorydevelopedassaysforinvitrodetectionofsarscov2inclinicallaboratories