Comparison of a laboratory-developed test targeting the envelope gene with three nucleic acid amplification tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2

被引:33
|
作者
Bulterys, Philip L. [1 ]
Garamani, Natasha [1 ]
Stevens, Bryan [1 ,2 ]
Sahoo, Malaya K. [1 ]
Huang, ChunHong [1 ]
Hogan, Catherine A. [1 ,2 ]
Zehnder, James [1 ]
Pinsky, Benjamin A. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Stanford Univ, Dept Pathol, Sch Med, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[2] Stanford Hlth Care, Clin Virol Lab, Stanford, CA USA
[3] Stanford Univ, Dept Med, Div Infect Dis & Geog Med, Sch Med, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
关键词
SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Coronavirus; Diagnostics;
D O I
10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104427
中图分类号
Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 100705 ;
摘要
Background: Numerous nucleic acid amplification tests, including real-time, reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) and isothermal amplification methods, have been developed to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA, including many that have received emergency use authorization (EUA). There is a need to assess their test performance relative to one another. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the test performance of a high complexity laboratory-developed rRT-PCR EUA from Stanford Health Care (SHC) targeting the SARS-CoV-2 envelope (E) gene with other tests: the Atila isothermal amplification assay targeting the nucleocapsid (N) gene and open reading frame 1ab (ORF1ab), the Altona E and spike (S) multiplex, real-time RT-PCR, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) N1 and N2 rRT-PCRs. Study Design: A diagnostic comparison study was performed by testing nasopharyngeal samples from persons under investigation for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Assay performance was assessed by percent agreement and Cohen's kappa coefficient. Results: Positive percent agreement with the SHC EUA reference assay was 82.8 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 65.0 to 92.9) for Atila, 86.7 % (95 % CI 69.7 to 95.3) for the Altona E and S targets, and 86.7 % (95 % CI 69.7 to 95.3) and 90.0 % (95 % CI 73.6 to 97.3), for the CDC N1 and N2 targets, respectively. All assays demonstrated 100 % negative percent agreement. Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.86 to 0.92, indicating excellent agreement. Conclusions: Performance was comparable among the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification methods tested, with a limited number of discrepancies observed in specimens with low viral loads.
引用
收藏
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of the Panther Fusion and a laboratory -developed test targeting the envelope gene for detection of SARS-CoV-2
    Hogan, Catherine A.
    Sahoo, Malaya K.
    Huang, ChunHong
    Garamani, Natasha
    Stevens, Bryan
    Zehnder, James
    Pinsky, Benjamin A.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY, 2020, 127
  • [2] Analytical and Clinical Comparison of Three Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection
    Smith, Elizabeth
    Zhen, Wei
    Manji, Ryhana
    Schron, Deborah
    Duong, Scott
    Berry, Gregory J.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2020, 58 (09)
  • [3] Integrity of SARS-CoV-2 Laboratory-Developed Tests Reply
    Adashi, Eli Y.
    Cohen, Glenn
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2022, 328 (05): : 478 - +
  • [4] SARS-CoV-2 Laboratory-Developed Tests Integrity Restored
    Adashi, Eli Y.
    Cohen, I. Glenn
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2022, 327 (13): : 1229 - 1230
  • [5] Comparison of the Accula SARS-CoV-2 Test with a Laboratory-Developed Assay for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Clinical Nasopharyngeal Specimens
    Hogan, Catherine A.
    Garamani, Natasha
    Lee, Andrew S.
    Tung, Jack K.
    Sahoo, Malaya K.
    Huang, ChunHong
    Stevens, Bryan
    Zehnder, James
    Pinsky, Benjamin A.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2020, 58 (08)
  • [6] Comparative analysis of point-of-care, high-throughput and laboratory-developed SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests (NATs)
    Kohmer, Niko
    Rabenau, Holger F.
    Hoehl, Sebastian
    Kortenbusch, Marhild
    Ciesek, Sandra
    Berger, Annemarie
    JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS, 2021, 291
  • [7] Clinical comparison of three SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests for routine diagnostic testing
    Garmatiuk, Tetiana
    Graenitz-Trisko, Christine
    Sochor-Geischlaeger, Charlotte
    Polsterer, Theresa
    Caselotto, Francesca
    Willitsch, Lukas
    Reinhardt, Birgit
    Huf, Wolfgang
    HELIYON, 2023, 9 (11)
  • [8] Comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2
    Dust, Kerry
    Hedley, Adam
    Nichol, Kim
    Stein, Derek
    Adam, Heather
    Karlowsky, James A.
    Bullard, Jared
    Van Caeseele, Paul
    Alexander, David C.
    JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS, 2020, 285
  • [9] Comparison of Commercially Available and Laboratory-Developed Assays for In Vitro Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Laboratories
    Lieberman, Joshua A.
    Pepper, Gregory
    Naccache, Samia N.
    Huang, Meei-Li
    Jerome, Keith R.
    Greninger, Alexander L.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2020, 58 (08)
  • [10] Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection from nasopharyngeal swab samples by the Roche cobas 6800 SARS-CoV-2 test and a laboratory-developed real-time RT-PCR test
    Pujadas, Elisabet
    Ibeh, Nnaemeka
    Hernandez, Matthew M.
    Waluszko, Aneta
    Sidorenko, Tatyana
    Flores, Vanessa
    Shiffrin, Biana
    Chiu, Numthip
    Young-Francois, Alicia
    Nowak, Michael D.
    Paniz-Mondolfi, Alberto E.
    Sordillo, Emilia M.
    Cordon-Cordo, Carlos
    Houldsworth, Jane
    Gitman, Melissa R.
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY, 2020, 92 (09) : 1695 - 1698