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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |