Comparison of diagnostic performance of five molecular assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2

We compared the performance of the Abbott Real Time SARS-CoV-2 assay (Abbott assay), Aptima™ SARS-CoV-2 assay (Aptima assay), BGI Real-Time SARS-CoV-2 assay (BGI assay), Lyra® SARS-CoV-2 assay (Lyra assay), and DiaSorin Simplexa™ COVID assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Residual nasopharyngeal samples...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kanwar, Neena, Banerjee, Dithi, Sasidharan, Anjana, Abdulhamid, Ayah, Larson, Marissa, Lee, Brian, Selvarangan, Rangaraj, Liesman, Rachael M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier Inc. 2021
Materias:
Article
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8343369/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34481324
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115518
_version_ 1783734274462056448
author Kanwar, Neena
Banerjee, Dithi
Sasidharan, Anjana
Abdulhamid, Ayah
Larson, Marissa
Lee, Brian
Selvarangan, Rangaraj
Liesman, Rachael M.
author_facet Kanwar, Neena
Banerjee, Dithi
Sasidharan, Anjana
Abdulhamid, Ayah
Larson, Marissa
Lee, Brian
Selvarangan, Rangaraj
Liesman, Rachael M.
author_sort Kanwar, Neena
collection PubMed
description We compared the performance of the Abbott Real Time SARS-CoV-2 assay (Abbott assay), Aptima™ SARS-CoV-2 assay (Aptima assay), BGI Real-Time SARS-CoV-2 assay (BGI assay), Lyra® SARS-CoV-2 assay (Lyra assay), and DiaSorin Simplexa™ COVID assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Residual nasopharyngeal samples (n = 201) submitted for routine SARS-CoV-2 testing by Simplexa assay during June-July 2020 and January 2021 were salvaged. Aliquots were tested on other assays and compared against the CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR assay. Viral load in positive samples was determined by droplet digital PCR. Among 201 samples, 99 were positive and 102 were negative by the CDC assay. The Aptima and Abbott assays exhibited the highest positive percent agreement (PPA) at 98.9% while the BGI assay demonstrated the lowest PPA of 89.9% with 10 missed detections. Negative percent agreement for all 5 platforms was comparable, ranging from 96.1% to 100%. The performance of all five assays was comparable.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8343369
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83433692021-08-06 Comparison of diagnostic performance of five molecular assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2 Kanwar, Neena Banerjee, Dithi Sasidharan, Anjana Abdulhamid, Ayah Larson, Marissa Lee, Brian Selvarangan, Rangaraj Liesman, Rachael M. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis Article We compared the performance of the Abbott Real Time SARS-CoV-2 assay (Abbott assay), Aptima™ SARS-CoV-2 assay (Aptima assay), BGI Real-Time SARS-CoV-2 assay (BGI assay), Lyra® SARS-CoV-2 assay (Lyra assay), and DiaSorin Simplexa™ COVID assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Residual nasopharyngeal samples (n = 201) submitted for routine SARS-CoV-2 testing by Simplexa assay during June-July 2020 and January 2021 were salvaged. Aliquots were tested on other assays and compared against the CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR assay. Viral load in positive samples was determined by droplet digital PCR. Among 201 samples, 99 were positive and 102 were negative by the CDC assay. The Aptima and Abbott assays exhibited the highest positive percent agreement (PPA) at 98.9% while the BGI assay demonstrated the lowest PPA of 89.9% with 10 missed detections. Negative percent agreement for all 5 platforms was comparable, ranging from 96.1% to 100%. The performance of all five assays was comparable. Elsevier Inc. 2021-12 2021-08-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8343369/ /pubmed/34481324 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115518 Text en © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
spellingShingle Article
Kanwar, Neena
Banerjee, Dithi
Sasidharan, Anjana
Abdulhamid, Ayah
Larson, Marissa
Lee, Brian
Selvarangan, Rangaraj
Liesman, Rachael M.
Comparison of diagnostic performance of five molecular assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2
title Comparison of diagnostic performance of five molecular assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2
title_full Comparison of diagnostic performance of five molecular assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2
title_fullStr Comparison of diagnostic performance of five molecular assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of diagnostic performance of five molecular assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2
title_short Comparison of diagnostic performance of five molecular assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2
title_sort comparison of diagnostic performance of five molecular assays for detection of sars-cov-2
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8343369/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34481324
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115518
work_keys_str_mv AT kanwarneena comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceoffivemolecularassaysfordetectionofsarscov2
AT banerjeedithi comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceoffivemolecularassaysfordetectionofsarscov2
AT sasidharananjana comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceoffivemolecularassaysfordetectionofsarscov2
AT abdulhamidayah comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceoffivemolecularassaysfordetectionofsarscov2
AT larsonmarissa comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceoffivemolecularassaysfordetectionofsarscov2
AT leebrian comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceoffivemolecularassaysfordetectionofsarscov2
AT selvaranganrangaraj comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceoffivemolecularassaysfordetectionofsarscov2
AT liesmanrachaelm comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceoffivemolecularassaysfordetectionofsarscov2

Ejemplares similares