Evaluation of the automated cartridge-based ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay (RUO) against automated Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 PCR as gold standard

被引:8
|
作者
Tanida, Konstantin [1 ,2 ]
Koste, Lars [1 ]
Koenig, Christian [1 ]
Wenzel, Werner [1 ]
Fritsch, Andreas [2 ]
Frickmann, Hagen [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Bundeswehr Hosp Hamburg, Dept Microbiol & Hosp Hyg, Bernhard Nocht Str 74, D-20359 Hamburg, Germany
[2] Bundeswehr Hosp Hamburg, Dept Lab Med, Hamburg, Germany
[3] Univ Med Rostock, Inst Med Microbiol Virol & Hyg, Rostock, Germany
来源
关键词
SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; point-of-care-testing; automated PCR; molecular rapid testing; testing comparison;
D O I
10.1556/1886.2020.00017
中图分类号
Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 100705 ;
摘要
Introduction: To evaluate the automated cartridge-based PCR approach ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay targeting the ORF-sequence and the N-gene of SARS-CoV-2. Methods: In line with the suggestions by Rabenau and colleagues, the automated ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay was challenged with strongly positive samples, weakly positive samples and negative samples. Further, intra-assay and inter-assay precision as well as the limit-of-detection (lod) were defined with quantified target RNA and DNA. The Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-Cov-2 Assay was used as gold standard. Results: Concordance between the ARIES assay and the Cepheid assay was 100% for strongly positive samples and for negative samples, respectively. For weakly positive samples as confirmed applying the Cepheid assay, a relevant minority of 4 out of 15 samples (26.7%) went undetected by the ARIES assay. Intra- and inter-assay precision were satisfactory, while the lod was in the 10(3) DNA copies/reaction-range, in the 10(3) virus copies/ reaction-range, or in the 10(3)-10(4) free RNA copies/reaction-range in our hands. Conclusions: The automated ARIES assay shows comparable test characteristics as the Cepheid assay focusing on strongly positive and negative samples but a slightly reduced sensitivity with weakly positive samples. Decisions on diagnostic use should include considerations on the lod.
引用
收藏
页码:156 / 164
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Comparison of the Clinical Performance of the Point-of-care STANDARD M10 SARS-CoV-2 and Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Assays
    Hong, Ki Ho
    Lee, Jaehyeon
    Kim, So Yeon
    Oh, Yeseul
    Cho, Hae Weon
    Lee, Hyukmin
    [J]. ANNALS OF LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2023, 43 (01) : 111 - 113
  • [22] Prevalence of a Single-Nucleotide Variant of SARS-CoV-2 in Korea and Its Impact on the Diagnostic Sensitivity of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Assay
    Hong, Ki Ho
    In, Ji Won
    Lee, Jaehyeon
    Kim, So Yeon
    Lee, Kyoung Ah
    Kim, Seunghyun
    An, Yeoungim
    Lee, Donggeun
    Sung, Heungsup
    Kim, Jae-Seok
    Lee, Hyukmin
    [J]. ANNALS OF LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2022, 42 (01) : 96 - +
  • [23] The Diagnostic Accuracy of Xpert Xpress to SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review
    Cao, Xun-Jie
    Fang, Ke-Ying
    Li, Ya-Ping
    Zhou, Jie
    Guo, Xu-Guang
    [J]. JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS, 2022, 301
  • [24] Brief validation of the novel GeneXpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 PCR assay
    Goldenberger, Daniel
    Leuzinger, Karoline
    Sogaard, Kirstine K.
    Gosert, Rainer
    Roloff, Tim
    Naegele, Klaudia
    Cuenod, Aline
    Mari, Alfredo
    Seth-Smith, Helena
    Rentsch, Katharina
    Hinic, Vladimira
    Hirsch, Hans H.
    Egli, Adrian
    [J]. JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS, 2020, 284
  • [25] Validation of the Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 using upper and lower respiratory tract specimens
    Rong, Kassie
    Cabrera, Ana
    Delport, Johan
    Schofield, Shannon
    AlMutawa, Fatimah
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY, 2022, 12 (01): : 18 - 21
  • [26] European multicenter evaluation of Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV test
    Wolters, Femke
    Grunberg, Maria
    Huber, Michael
    Kessler, Harald H.
    Prueller, Florian
    Saleh, Lanja
    Febreau, Christine
    Rahamat-Langendoen, Janette
    Thibault, Vincent
    Melchers, Willem J. G.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY, 2021, 93 (10) : 5798 - 5804
  • [27] Evaluation of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV Assay for Simultaneous Detection of SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A and B Viruses, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus in Nasopharyngeal Specimens
    Leung, Eddie Chi-man
    Chow, Viola Chi-ying
    Lee, May Kin-ping
    Tang, Kevin Pui-san
    Li, Daniel Kwok-cheung
    Lai, Raymond Wai-man
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2021, 59 (04)
  • [28] Evaluation of four commercial, fully automated SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests suggests a revision of the Siemens SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay
    Irsara, Christian
    Egger, Alexander E.
    Prokop, Wolfgang
    Nairz, Manfred
    Loacker, Lorin
    Sahanic, Sabina
    Pizzini, Alex
    Sonnweber, Thomas
    Mayer, Wolfgang
    Schennach, Harald
    Loeffler-Ragg, Judith
    Bellmann-Weiler, Rosa
    Tancevski, Ivan
    Weiss, Guenter
    Anliker, Markus
    Griesmacher, Andrea
    Hoermann, Gregor
    [J]. CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2021, 59 (06) : 1143 - 1154
  • [29] Comparison of Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Assay with Standard RT- PCR Test for Detection of COVID-19 Infection: A Retrospective Cohort Study
    Dhuria, Nitika
    Nagpal, Nitin
    Sharma, Vishal
    Kumar, Arun
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH, 2023, 17 (02) : DC20 - DC23
  • [30] Comparison of Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Assay Compared with Standard M nCoV Real-Time PCR: Prospective Study
    Oh, Ae-chin
    Suh, Hyeon Jeong
    Kim, Heyjin
    Lee, Jin Kyung
    Hong, Young Jun
    [J]. CLINICAL LABORATORY, 2024, 70 (02) : 405 - 409