Comparison and Harmonization of Different Semi-Automated and Automated qRT-PCR Assays in the Assessment of SARS-CoV-2

In SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics, cycle threshold (Ct) values from qRT-PCRs semi-quantitatively estimate a patient’s viral load. However, relevant analytical differences between qRT-PCR assays are often neglected. This study was designed (i) to identify such differences between five commonly used assays and (ii) to demonstrate a straightforward strategy to harmonize them. QRT-PCRs for SARS-CoV-2 were carried out in 85 oropharyngeal swab samples using three fully automated (Alinity m, cobas(®)6800 and GeneXpert) and two semi-automated (genesig(®) and RIDA(®)GENE) assays. Qualitative results (positive/negative) showed excellent comparability between the fully automated assays, but not between the Alinity m and semi-automated methods. Ct values significantly varied between all the methods, with the median values ranging from 22.76 (Alinity m) to 30.89 (RIDA(®)GENE) and 31.50 (genesig(®)), indicating the lowest sensitivity for semi-automated methods. Passing–Bablok analysis further revealed systemic biases. Assay-specific viral load concentration calculations—based on generated individual standard curves—resulted in much better comparability between the assays. Applying these calculations, significant differences were no longer detectable. This study highlights relevant analytical differences between SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR assays, leading to divergent decisions about the mandatory isolation of infected individuals. Secondly, we propose a strategy to harmonize qRT-PCR assays to achieve better comparability. Our findings are of particular interest for laboratories utilizing different assays.