A Comparison of Five SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Assays With Clinical Correlations.
Am J Clin Pathol
; 155(1): 69-78, 2021 Jan 04.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-33015712
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES:
Comparative assessments of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) molecular assays that have been operationalized through the US Food and Drug Administration's Emergency Use Authorization process are warranted to assess real-world performance. Characteristics such as sensitivity, specificity, and false-negative rate are important to inform clinical use.METHODS:
We compared five SARS-CoV-2 assays using nasopharyngeal and nasal swab specimens submitted in transport media; we enriched this cohort for positive specimens, since we were particularly interested in the sensitivity and false-negative rate. Performance of each test was compared with a composite standard.RESULTS:
The sensitivities and false-negative rates of the 239 specimens that met inclusion criteria were, respectively, as follows Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2019 nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, 100% and 0%; TIB MOLBIOL/Roche z 480 Assay, 96.5% and 3.5%; Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid), 97.6% and 2.4%; Simplexa COVID-19 Direct Kit (DiaSorin), 88.1% and 11.9%; and ID Now COVID-19 (Abbott), 83.3% and 16.7%.CONCLUSIONS:
The assays that included a nucleic acid extraction followed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction were more sensitive than assays that lacked a full extraction. Most false negatives were seen in patients with low viral loads, as extrapolated from crossing threshold values.Palavras-chave
Texto completo:
1
Coleções:
01-internacional
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Tipo de estudo:
Diagnostic_studies
/
Etiology_studies
/
Incidence_studies
/
Observational_studies
/
Prognostic_studies
/
Risk_factors_studies
Limite:
Adult
/
Aged
/
Female
/
Humans
/
Male
/
Middle aged
Idioma:
En
Ano de publicação:
2021
Tipo de documento:
Article