Cargando…
Utility of Stool PCR for the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Comparison of Two Commercial Platforms
The ability to detect SARS-CoV-2 in the upper respiratory tract ceases after 2 to 3 weeks post-symptom-onset in most patients. In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in the stool of some patients for greater than 4 weeks, suggesting that stool may hold utility as an additional source for diagnosis....
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/PMC7448643/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32611796 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01369-20 |
_version_ | 1783574523884339200 |
---|---|
author | Szymczak, Wendy A. Goldstein, D. Yitzchak Orner, Erika P. Fecher, Roger A. Yokoda, Raquel T. Skalina, Karin A. Narlieva, Momka Gendlina, Inessa Fox, Amy S. |
author_facet | Szymczak, Wendy A. Goldstein, D. Yitzchak Orner, Erika P. Fecher, Roger A. Yokoda, Raquel T. Skalina, Karin A. Narlieva, Momka Gendlina, Inessa Fox, Amy S. |
author_sort | Szymczak, Wendy A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The ability to detect SARS-CoV-2 in the upper respiratory tract ceases after 2 to 3 weeks post-symptom-onset in most patients. In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in the stool of some patients for greater than 4 weeks, suggesting that stool may hold utility as an additional source for diagnosis. We validated the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and Hologic Panther Fusion real-time RT-PCR assays for detection of viral RNA in stool specimens and compared performance. We utilized remnant stool specimens (n = 79) from 77 patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. Forty-eight patients had PCR-confirmed COVID-19, and 29 either were nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal PCR negative or presented for reasons unrelated to COVID-19 and were not tested. Positive percent agreement between the Cepheid and Hologic assays was 93% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.1% to 98.2%), and negative percent agreement was 96% (95% CI: 89% to 0.99%). Four discrepant specimens (Cepheid positive only, n = 2; Hologic positive only, n = 2) exhibited average cycle threshold (C(T)) values of >37 for the targets detected. Of the 48 patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19, 23 were positive by both assays (47.9%). For the negative patient group, 2/29 were positive by both assays (6.9%). The two stool PCR-positive, nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal PCR-negative patients were SARS-CoV-2 IgG positive. Our results demonstrate acceptable agreement between two commercially available molecular assays and support the use of stool PCR to confirm diagnosis when SARS-CoV-2 is undetectable in the upper respiratory tract. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7448643 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | American Society for Microbiology |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74486432020-09-09 Utility of Stool PCR for the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Comparison of Two Commercial Platforms Szymczak, Wendy A. Goldstein, D. Yitzchak Orner, Erika P. Fecher, Roger A. Yokoda, Raquel T. Skalina, Karin A. Narlieva, Momka Gendlina, Inessa Fox, Amy S. J Clin Microbiol Virology The ability to detect SARS-CoV-2 in the upper respiratory tract ceases after 2 to 3 weeks post-symptom-onset in most patients. In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in the stool of some patients for greater than 4 weeks, suggesting that stool may hold utility as an additional source for diagnosis. We validated the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and Hologic Panther Fusion real-time RT-PCR assays for detection of viral RNA in stool specimens and compared performance. We utilized remnant stool specimens (n = 79) from 77 patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. Forty-eight patients had PCR-confirmed COVID-19, and 29 either were nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal PCR negative or presented for reasons unrelated to COVID-19 and were not tested. Positive percent agreement between the Cepheid and Hologic assays was 93% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.1% to 98.2%), and negative percent agreement was 96% (95% CI: 89% to 0.99%). Four discrepant specimens (Cepheid positive only, n = 2; Hologic positive only, n = 2) exhibited average cycle threshold (C(T)) values of >37 for the targets detected. Of the 48 patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19, 23 were positive by both assays (47.9%). For the negative patient group, 2/29 were positive by both assays (6.9%). The two stool PCR-positive, nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal PCR-negative patients were SARS-CoV-2 IgG positive. Our results demonstrate acceptable agreement between two commercially available molecular assays and support the use of stool PCR to confirm diagnosis when SARS-CoV-2 is undetectable in the upper respiratory tract. American Society for Microbiology 2020-08-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7448643/ /pubmed/32611796 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01369-20 Text en Copyright © 2020 American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved (https://doi.org/10.1128/ASMCopyrightv2) . https://doi.org/10.1128/ASMCopyrightv2 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted noncommercial re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic. |
spellingShingle | Virology Szymczak, Wendy A. Goldstein, D. Yitzchak Orner, Erika P. Fecher, Roger A. Yokoda, Raquel T. Skalina, Karin A. Narlieva, Momka Gendlina, Inessa Fox, Amy S. Utility of Stool PCR for the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Comparison of Two Commercial Platforms |
title | Utility of Stool PCR for the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Comparison of Two Commercial Platforms |
title_full | Utility of Stool PCR for the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Comparison of Two Commercial Platforms |
title_fullStr | Utility of Stool PCR for the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Comparison of Two Commercial Platforms |
title_full_unstemmed | Utility of Stool PCR for the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Comparison of Two Commercial Platforms |
title_short | Utility of Stool PCR for the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Comparison of Two Commercial Platforms |
title_sort | utility of stool pcr for the diagnosis of covid-19: comparison of two commercial platforms |
topic | Virology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7448643/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32611796 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01369-20 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT szymczakwendya utilityofstoolpcrforthediagnosisofcovid19comparisonoftwocommercialplatforms AT goldsteindyitzchak utilityofstoolpcrforthediagnosisofcovid19comparisonoftwocommercialplatforms AT ornererikap utilityofstoolpcrforthediagnosisofcovid19comparisonoftwocommercialplatforms AT fecherrogera utilityofstoolpcrforthediagnosisofcovid19comparisonoftwocommercialplatforms AT yokodaraquelt utilityofstoolpcrforthediagnosisofcovid19comparisonoftwocommercialplatforms AT skalinakarina utilityofstoolpcrforthediagnosisofcovid19comparisonoftwocommercialplatforms AT narlievamomka utilityofstoolpcrforthediagnosisofcovid19comparisonoftwocommercialplatforms AT gendlinainessa utilityofstoolpcrforthediagnosisofcovid19comparisonoftwocommercialplatforms AT foxamys utilityofstoolpcrforthediagnosisofcovid19comparisonoftwocommercialplatforms |