Evaluation of extraction-free RT-qPCR methods for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.

Extraction-based real-time reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is currently the "gold standard" in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. However, some extraction-free RT-qPCR techniques have recently been developed. In this study, we compared the sensitivity of traditional extraction-based, heated extraction-free, and unheated extraction-free RT-qPCR methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection in nasopharyngeal swabs from symptomatic individuals. The unheated extraction-free method showed perfect agreement with the standard extraction-based RT-qPCR. By contrast, the heat-treated technique was associated with an 8.2% false negativity rate. Unheated extraction-free RT-qPCR for the molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is a valuable alternative to the traditional extraction-based methods and may accelerate turnaround times by about two hours.

Comparative diagnostic performance of rapid antigen detection tests for COVID-19 in a hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: The availability of accurate and rapid diagnostic tools for COVID-19 is essential for tackling the ongoing pandemic. Our study aimed to quantify the performance of available antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) in a real-world hospital setting. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, the diagnostic performance of 7 Ag-RDTs was compared with real-time reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay in terms of sensitivity, specificity and expected predictive values. RESULTS: A total of 321 matched Ag-RDTreal-time reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction samples were analyzed retrospectively. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the Ag-RDTs was 78.7% and 100%, respectively. However, a wide range of sensitivity estimates by brand (66.0%-93.8%) and cycle threshold (Ct) cut-off values (Ct <25: 96.2%; Ct 30-35: 31.1%) was observed. The optimal Ct cut-off value that maximized sensitivity was 29. CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of Ag-RDTs may be convenient in moderate-to-high intensity settings when high volumes of specimens are tested every day. However, the diagnostic performance of the commercially available tests may differ substantially.