Cargando…

Comparative Performance Evaluation of FilmArray BioFire RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Detection

BACKGROUND: RT-PCR is the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis, but the lack of standardization of assays, whose diagnostic performance may widely vary, complicates the interpretation of the discrepancies that may be encountered. Study design. We conducted a retrospective study over a ten-month peri...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tazi, Sophia, Kabbaj, Hakima, Zirar, Jalila, Zouaki, Amal, El Amin, Ghizlane, El Himeur, Othman, Seffar, Myriam
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9177333/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35693128
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/4510900
_version_ 1784722864269688832
author Tazi, Sophia
Kabbaj, Hakima
Zirar, Jalila
Zouaki, Amal
El Amin, Ghizlane
El Himeur, Othman
Seffar, Myriam
author_facet Tazi, Sophia
Kabbaj, Hakima
Zirar, Jalila
Zouaki, Amal
El Amin, Ghizlane
El Himeur, Othman
Seffar, Myriam
author_sort Tazi, Sophia
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: RT-PCR is the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis, but the lack of standardization of assays, whose diagnostic performance may widely vary, complicates the interpretation of the discrepancies that may be encountered. Study design. We conducted a retrospective study over a ten-month period at the Central Laboratory of Virology of Ibn Sina University Hospital of Rabat. We included nasopharyngeal swabs, positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2 on FilmArray BioFire® Respiratory Panel 2.1 Plus, which were subjected to our laboratory's reference test, MAScIR SARS-CoV-2 M kit 2.0, initially or after a freeze-thaw cycle. The results were compared, and each discrepant sample with sufficient volume underwent the third test, using ARGENE® SARS-CoV-2 R-GENE kit. RESULTS: Of 80 SARS-CoV-2 negative samples on FilmArray, there were no discordant results, whereas of 80 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples on FilmArray, 21 had discordant results on MAScIR, and only 11 could be tested on ARGENE, revealing positive results in 6 cases. 12.7% and 76.5% correspond to the discordance rates for MAScIR (with one or both targets detected on FilmArray), while 14.3% and 100% correspond to those of ARGENE. As the estimated sensitivity and specificity of FilmArray, compared with MAScIR, were 100% and 79.2%, respectively, its lower limit of detection, and ARGENE assay results, made it difficult to distinguish between false positives on FilmArray and false negatives on MAScIR without further investigations. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a new assay in our laboratory revealed discrepancies suggesting a lack of sensitivity of our laboratory's reference test, leading us consequently to retain the SARS-CoV-2 positive result of these discordant samples on FilmArray, regardless of the detection of one or both targets. Our study, which is, to our knowledge, the first comparing FilmArray RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection, highlights the urgent need to standardize RT-PCR assays for COVID-19 diagnosis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9177333
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91773332022-06-09 Comparative Performance Evaluation of FilmArray BioFire RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Detection Tazi, Sophia Kabbaj, Hakima Zirar, Jalila Zouaki, Amal El Amin, Ghizlane El Himeur, Othman Seffar, Myriam Adv Virol Research Article BACKGROUND: RT-PCR is the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis, but the lack of standardization of assays, whose diagnostic performance may widely vary, complicates the interpretation of the discrepancies that may be encountered. Study design. We conducted a retrospective study over a ten-month period at the Central Laboratory of Virology of Ibn Sina University Hospital of Rabat. We included nasopharyngeal swabs, positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2 on FilmArray BioFire® Respiratory Panel 2.1 Plus, which were subjected to our laboratory's reference test, MAScIR SARS-CoV-2 M kit 2.0, initially or after a freeze-thaw cycle. The results were compared, and each discrepant sample with sufficient volume underwent the third test, using ARGENE® SARS-CoV-2 R-GENE kit. RESULTS: Of 80 SARS-CoV-2 negative samples on FilmArray, there were no discordant results, whereas of 80 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples on FilmArray, 21 had discordant results on MAScIR, and only 11 could be tested on ARGENE, revealing positive results in 6 cases. 12.7% and 76.5% correspond to the discordance rates for MAScIR (with one or both targets detected on FilmArray), while 14.3% and 100% correspond to those of ARGENE. As the estimated sensitivity and specificity of FilmArray, compared with MAScIR, were 100% and 79.2%, respectively, its lower limit of detection, and ARGENE assay results, made it difficult to distinguish between false positives on FilmArray and false negatives on MAScIR without further investigations. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a new assay in our laboratory revealed discrepancies suggesting a lack of sensitivity of our laboratory's reference test, leading us consequently to retain the SARS-CoV-2 positive result of these discordant samples on FilmArray, regardless of the detection of one or both targets. Our study, which is, to our knowledge, the first comparing FilmArray RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection, highlights the urgent need to standardize RT-PCR assays for COVID-19 diagnosis. Hindawi 2022-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9177333/ /pubmed/35693128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/4510900 Text en Copyright © 2022 Sophia Tazi et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Tazi, Sophia
Kabbaj, Hakima
Zirar, Jalila
Zouaki, Amal
El Amin, Ghizlane
El Himeur, Othman
Seffar, Myriam
Comparative Performance Evaluation of FilmArray BioFire RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Detection
title Comparative Performance Evaluation of FilmArray BioFire RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Detection
title_full Comparative Performance Evaluation of FilmArray BioFire RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Detection
title_fullStr Comparative Performance Evaluation of FilmArray BioFire RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Detection
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Performance Evaluation of FilmArray BioFire RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Detection
title_short Comparative Performance Evaluation of FilmArray BioFire RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Detection
title_sort comparative performance evaluation of filmarray biofire rp2.1 and mascir 2.0 assays for sars-cov-2 detection
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9177333/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35693128
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/4510900
work_keys_str_mv AT tazisophia comparativeperformanceevaluationoffilmarraybiofirerp21andmascir20assaysforsarscov2detection
AT kabbajhakima comparativeperformanceevaluationoffilmarraybiofirerp21andmascir20assaysforsarscov2detection
AT zirarjalila comparativeperformanceevaluationoffilmarraybiofirerp21andmascir20assaysforsarscov2detection
AT zouakiamal comparativeperformanceevaluationoffilmarraybiofirerp21andmascir20assaysforsarscov2detection
AT elaminghizlane comparativeperformanceevaluationoffilmarraybiofirerp21andmascir20assaysforsarscov2detection
AT elhimeurothman comparativeperformanceevaluationoffilmarraybiofirerp21andmascir20assaysforsarscov2detection
AT seffarmyriam comparativeperformanceevaluationoffilmarraybiofirerp21andmascir20assaysforsarscov2detection