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

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...

Full description

Autores:
Tipo de recurso:
Article of journal
Fecha de publicación:
2020
Institución:
Universidad de Bogotá Jorge Tadeo Lozano
Repositorio:
Expeditio: repositorio UTadeo
Idioma:
eng
OAI Identifier:
oai:expeditiorepositorio.utadeo.edu.co:20.500.12010/12473
Acceso en línea:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653220301694?via%3Dihub
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12010/12473
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104427
Palabra clave:
SARS-CoV-2
Coronavirus
Síndrome respiratorio agudo grave
COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
Coronavirus
Diagnostics
Rights
License
Acceso restringido
Description
Summary: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.