Cargando…

Comparison of four commercial RT‐PCR diagnostic kits for COVID‐19 in China

We compared the sensitivity and specificity of four commercial coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) diagnostic kits using real‐time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR). Kits I‐IV approved by the State Drug Administration of China were selected, and the detection targets were ORF1ab ge...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shen, Lingyu, Cui, Shujuan, Zhang, Daitao, Lin, Changying, Chen, Lijuan, Wang, Quanyi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7843276/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33320386
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcla.23605
_version_ 1783644111286304768
author Shen, Lingyu
Cui, Shujuan
Zhang, Daitao
Lin, Changying
Chen, Lijuan
Wang, Quanyi
author_facet Shen, Lingyu
Cui, Shujuan
Zhang, Daitao
Lin, Changying
Chen, Lijuan
Wang, Quanyi
author_sort Shen, Lingyu
collection PubMed
description We compared the sensitivity and specificity of four commercial coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) diagnostic kits using real‐time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR). Kits I‐IV approved by the State Drug Administration of China were selected, and the detection targets were ORF1ab gene and N gene. Specificity was evaluated by detecting other respiratory viruses. The sensitivity and batch effect of each kit were evaluated by testing 10‐fold dilutions of RNA. Clinical application was verified by testing nasopharyngeal swab and sputum specimens from COVID‐19 patients. Among the 78 cases infected by other respiratory viruses, no amplification curve was observed using these four COVID‐19 RT‐PCR kits. The minimum detection limits of kits I‐IV were 10(−6), 10(−5), 10(−5), and 10(−6) dilutions, respectively, and concentrations were 10 copies/mL (10(−5) dilution) and 1 copies/mL (10(−6) dilution). The sensitivities of kits I‐IV detected using 142 nasopharyngeal swab specimens from COVID‐19 patients were 91.55%, 81.69%, 80.28%, and 90.85%, respectively, while they were 92.68%, 85.37%, 82.93%, and 93.90%, respectively, for the 82 sputum samples. The specificity of each kit was 100.00% (77/77). The total expected detection rate using sputum samples was 88.59% (691/780) higher than 86.15% (672/780) of nasopharyngeal swabs. Comparison of nasopharyngeal swab and sputum samples from the same COVID‐19 patient led to the detection of ORF1ab and N genes in 16 (100%) sputum samples; only ORF1ab and N genes were detected in 12 (75%) and 14 (87.5%) nasopharyngeal swab specimens, respectively. In conclusion, comparison of commercial COVID‐19 RT‐PCR kits should be performed before using a new batch of such kits in routine diagnostics.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7843276
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78432762021-02-02 Comparison of four commercial RT‐PCR diagnostic kits for COVID‐19 in China Shen, Lingyu Cui, Shujuan Zhang, Daitao Lin, Changying Chen, Lijuan Wang, Quanyi J Clin Lab Anal Research Articles We compared the sensitivity and specificity of four commercial coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) diagnostic kits using real‐time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR). Kits I‐IV approved by the State Drug Administration of China were selected, and the detection targets were ORF1ab gene and N gene. Specificity was evaluated by detecting other respiratory viruses. The sensitivity and batch effect of each kit were evaluated by testing 10‐fold dilutions of RNA. Clinical application was verified by testing nasopharyngeal swab and sputum specimens from COVID‐19 patients. Among the 78 cases infected by other respiratory viruses, no amplification curve was observed using these four COVID‐19 RT‐PCR kits. The minimum detection limits of kits I‐IV were 10(−6), 10(−5), 10(−5), and 10(−6) dilutions, respectively, and concentrations were 10 copies/mL (10(−5) dilution) and 1 copies/mL (10(−6) dilution). The sensitivities of kits I‐IV detected using 142 nasopharyngeal swab specimens from COVID‐19 patients were 91.55%, 81.69%, 80.28%, and 90.85%, respectively, while they were 92.68%, 85.37%, 82.93%, and 93.90%, respectively, for the 82 sputum samples. The specificity of each kit was 100.00% (77/77). The total expected detection rate using sputum samples was 88.59% (691/780) higher than 86.15% (672/780) of nasopharyngeal swabs. Comparison of nasopharyngeal swab and sputum samples from the same COVID‐19 patient led to the detection of ORF1ab and N genes in 16 (100%) sputum samples; only ORF1ab and N genes were detected in 12 (75%) and 14 (87.5%) nasopharyngeal swab specimens, respectively. In conclusion, comparison of commercial COVID‐19 RT‐PCR kits should be performed before using a new batch of such kits in routine diagnostics. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-12-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7843276/ /pubmed/33320386 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcla.23605 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Shen, Lingyu
Cui, Shujuan
Zhang, Daitao
Lin, Changying
Chen, Lijuan
Wang, Quanyi
Comparison of four commercial RT‐PCR diagnostic kits for COVID‐19 in China
title Comparison of four commercial RT‐PCR diagnostic kits for COVID‐19 in China
title_full Comparison of four commercial RT‐PCR diagnostic kits for COVID‐19 in China
title_fullStr Comparison of four commercial RT‐PCR diagnostic kits for COVID‐19 in China
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of four commercial RT‐PCR diagnostic kits for COVID‐19 in China
title_short Comparison of four commercial RT‐PCR diagnostic kits for COVID‐19 in China
title_sort comparison of four commercial rt‐pcr diagnostic kits for covid‐19 in china
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7843276/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33320386
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcla.23605
work_keys_str_mv AT shenlingyu comparisonoffourcommercialrtpcrdiagnostickitsforcovid19inchina
AT cuishujuan comparisonoffourcommercialrtpcrdiagnostickitsforcovid19inchina
AT zhangdaitao comparisonoffourcommercialrtpcrdiagnostickitsforcovid19inchina
AT linchangying comparisonoffourcommercialrtpcrdiagnostickitsforcovid19inchina
AT chenlijuan comparisonoffourcommercialrtpcrdiagnostickitsforcovid19inchina
AT wangquanyi comparisonoffourcommercialrtpcrdiagnostickitsforcovid19inchina