Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Med Virol ; 93(9): 5481-5486, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33963565

ABSTRACT

As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections continue, there is a substantial need for cost-effective and large-scale testing that utilizes specimens that can be readily collected from both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals in various community settings. Although multiple diagnostic methods utilize nasopharyngeal specimens, saliva specimens represent an attractive alternative as they can rapidly and safely be collected from different populations. While saliva has been described as an acceptable clinical matrix for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, evaluations of analytic performance across platforms for this specimen type are limited. Here, we used a novel sensitive RT-PCR/MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry-based assay (Agena MassARRAY®) to detect SARS-CoV-2 in saliva specimens. The platform demonstrated high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity when compared to matched patient upper respiratory specimens. We also evaluated the analytical sensitivity of the platform and determined the limit of detection of the assay to be 1562.5 copies/ml. Furthermore, across the five individual target components of this assay, there was a range in analytic sensitivities for each target with the N2 target being the most sensitive. Overall, this system also demonstrated comparable performance when compared to the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva by the cobas® 6800/8800 SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT-PCR Test (Roche). Together, we demonstrate that saliva represents an appropriate matrix for SARS-CoV-2 detection on the novel Agena system as well as on a conventional real-time RT-PCR assay. We conclude that the MassARRAY® system is a sensitive and reliable platform for SARS-CoV-2 detection in saliva, offering scalable throughput in a large variety of clinical laboratory settings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/standards , COVID-19/diagnosis , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/standards , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Saliva/virology , Spectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization/standards , Benchmarking , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/instrumentation , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/instrumentation , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/methods , Humans , Limit of Detection , Nasopharynx/virology , Specimen Handling/standards , Spectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization/instrumentation , Spectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization/methods
2.
J Med Virol ; 92(9): 1695-1698, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32383179

ABSTRACT

The urgent need to implement and rapidly expand testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has led to the development of multiple assays. How these tests perform relative to one another is poorly understood. We evaluated the concordance between the Roche Diagnostics cobas 6800 SARS-CoV-2 test and a laboratory-developed test (LDT) real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction based on a modified Centers for Disease Control and Prevention protocol, for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in samples submitted to the Clinical Laboratories of the Mount Sinai Health System. A total of 1006 nasopharyngeal swabs in universal transport medium from persons under investigation were tested for SARS-CoV-2 as part of routine clinical care using the cobas SARS-CoV-2 test with subsequent evaluation by the LDT. Cycle threshold values were analyzed and interpreted as either positive ("detected" or "presumptive positive"), negative (not detected), inconclusive, or invalid. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 8. The cobas SARS-CoV-2 test reported 706 positive and 300 negative results. The LDT reported 640 positive, 323 negative, 34 inconclusive, and 9 invalid results. When excluding inconclusive and invalid results, the overall percent agreement between the two platforms was 95.8%. Cohen's κ coefficient was 0.904 (95% confidence interval, 0.875-0.933), suggesting almost perfect agreement between both platforms. An overall discordance rate of 4.2% between the two systems may reflect differences in primer sequences, assay limit of detection, or other factors, highlighting the importance of comparing the performance of different testing platforms.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Nasopharynx/virology , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2/classification , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Humans , RNA, Viral , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic , Reproducibility of Results , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/instrumentation , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...