Cargando…

Evaluation of Factors that Affect the Performance of COVID-19 Molecular Assays Including Presence of Symptoms, Number of Detected Genes and RNA Extraction Type

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Rapid and accurate detection of COVID-19 is crucial for mitigation of the pandemic. We evaluated the performance of six molecular kits and the effect of several factors on the performance of the kits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and four nasopharyngeal samples were collec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jerbi, Liron, Azrad, Maya, Peretz, Avi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8784860/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35072934
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40291-021-00574-y
_version_ 1784638833182113792
author Jerbi, Liron
Azrad, Maya
Peretz, Avi
author_facet Jerbi, Liron
Azrad, Maya
Peretz, Avi
author_sort Jerbi, Liron
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Rapid and accurate detection of COVID-19 is crucial for mitigation of the pandemic. We evaluated the performance of six molecular kits and the effect of several factors on the performance of the kits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and four nasopharyngeal samples were collected from participants aged ≥18 years at the Baruch Padeh Medical Center Poriya, Israel, between June and August 2020. Samples were tested by: Allplex 2019‐nCOV Assay (Seegene), Real‐Time Fluorescent RT‐PCR Kit for Detecting SARS-2019-nCoV (BGI Genomics), Xpert(®) Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test (Cepheid), Simplexa(®) COVID-19 Direct Kit (Focus Diagnostics), BD SARS-CoV-2 Reagents for BD MAX™ System (BD), and Logix Smart™ Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Test kit (CO-DIAGNOSTICS). RESULTS: Xpert(®) Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test and Logix Smart™ COVID-19 Kit had the highest (91.2%) and the lowest (74.5%) sensitivity, respectively. Symptoms were a predictor of a positive result. Traditional assays had a higher minimum cycle threshold (min Ct), i.e. detected lower viral load, compared to rapid assays (p = 0.012). Samples of symptomatic participants had lower min Ct, than samples of asymptomatic participants (p < 0.001). Additionally, the more genes were detected, the lower the min Ct (p < 0.001), indicating that a greater percentage of the viral genome was amplified. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, most assays had overall good performance. Since several factors affect the performance of kits, each laboratory must be familiar with its kit’s limitations in order to produce the most reliable results. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40291-021-00574-y.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8784860
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87848602022-01-24 Evaluation of Factors that Affect the Performance of COVID-19 Molecular Assays Including Presence of Symptoms, Number of Detected Genes and RNA Extraction Type Jerbi, Liron Azrad, Maya Peretz, Avi Mol Diagn Ther Original Research Article BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Rapid and accurate detection of COVID-19 is crucial for mitigation of the pandemic. We evaluated the performance of six molecular kits and the effect of several factors on the performance of the kits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and four nasopharyngeal samples were collected from participants aged ≥18 years at the Baruch Padeh Medical Center Poriya, Israel, between June and August 2020. Samples were tested by: Allplex 2019‐nCOV Assay (Seegene), Real‐Time Fluorescent RT‐PCR Kit for Detecting SARS-2019-nCoV (BGI Genomics), Xpert(®) Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test (Cepheid), Simplexa(®) COVID-19 Direct Kit (Focus Diagnostics), BD SARS-CoV-2 Reagents for BD MAX™ System (BD), and Logix Smart™ Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Test kit (CO-DIAGNOSTICS). RESULTS: Xpert(®) Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test and Logix Smart™ COVID-19 Kit had the highest (91.2%) and the lowest (74.5%) sensitivity, respectively. Symptoms were a predictor of a positive result. Traditional assays had a higher minimum cycle threshold (min Ct), i.e. detected lower viral load, compared to rapid assays (p = 0.012). Samples of symptomatic participants had lower min Ct, than samples of asymptomatic participants (p < 0.001). Additionally, the more genes were detected, the lower the min Ct (p < 0.001), indicating that a greater percentage of the viral genome was amplified. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, most assays had overall good performance. Since several factors affect the performance of kits, each laboratory must be familiar with its kit’s limitations in order to produce the most reliable results. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40291-021-00574-y. Springer International Publishing 2022-01-24 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8784860/ /pubmed/35072934 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40291-021-00574-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Jerbi, Liron
Azrad, Maya
Peretz, Avi
Evaluation of Factors that Affect the Performance of COVID-19 Molecular Assays Including Presence of Symptoms, Number of Detected Genes and RNA Extraction Type
title Evaluation of Factors that Affect the Performance of COVID-19 Molecular Assays Including Presence of Symptoms, Number of Detected Genes and RNA Extraction Type
title_full Evaluation of Factors that Affect the Performance of COVID-19 Molecular Assays Including Presence of Symptoms, Number of Detected Genes and RNA Extraction Type
title_fullStr Evaluation of Factors that Affect the Performance of COVID-19 Molecular Assays Including Presence of Symptoms, Number of Detected Genes and RNA Extraction Type
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Factors that Affect the Performance of COVID-19 Molecular Assays Including Presence of Symptoms, Number of Detected Genes and RNA Extraction Type
title_short Evaluation of Factors that Affect the Performance of COVID-19 Molecular Assays Including Presence of Symptoms, Number of Detected Genes and RNA Extraction Type
title_sort evaluation of factors that affect the performance of covid-19 molecular assays including presence of symptoms, number of detected genes and rna extraction type
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8784860/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35072934
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40291-021-00574-y
work_keys_str_mv AT jerbiliron evaluationoffactorsthataffecttheperformanceofcovid19molecularassaysincludingpresenceofsymptomsnumberofdetectedgenesandrnaextractiontype
AT azradmaya evaluationoffactorsthataffecttheperformanceofcovid19molecularassaysincludingpresenceofsymptomsnumberofdetectedgenesandrnaextractiontype
AT peretzavi evaluationoffactorsthataffecttheperformanceofcovid19molecularassaysincludingpresenceofsymptomsnumberofdetectedgenesandrnaextractiontype