Cargando…

Performance evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx® Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the QIAstat-Dx® Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel (QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2), which is a closed, fully automated, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay that detects severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and 21 other pathogens tha...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lebourgeois, Samuel, Storto, Alexandre, Gout, Bernard, Le Hingrat, Quentin, Ardila Tjader, Gustave, Cerdan, Maria del Carmen, English, Alistair, Pareja, Josep, Love, Joanna, Houhou-Fidouh, Nadhira, Manissero, Davide, Descamps, Diane, Visseaux, Benoit
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8064816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33901651
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.04.066
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the QIAstat-Dx® Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel (QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2), which is a closed, fully automated, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay that detects severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and 21 other pathogens that cause respiratory disease. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs from patients with or suspected of having coronavirus disease 2019 were collected and tested at Bichat–Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, France. Using the World Health Organisation-approved real-time-PCR assay developed by the Charité Institute of Virology as the reference, positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 189 negative and 88 positive samples were analyzed. QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 had an NPA of 90.48% (95% confidence interval (CI), 85.37%, 94.26%) and a PPA of 94.32% (95% CI, 87.24%, 98.13%). Co-infections were detected by QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 in 4/277 specimens. The methods exhibited comparable failure rates (23/307 [7.5%] vs. 6/298 [2.0%] for QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 and reference methods, respectively). The turnaround time was shorter for QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 compared with the reference method (difference in mean –14:30 h [standard error, 0:03:23; 95% CI, –14:37, –14:24]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 shows good agreement with the reference assay, providing faster and accurate results for detecting SARS-CoV-2.