• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

J Clin Virol . Comparison of a Laboratory-Developed Test Targeting the Envelope Gene With Three Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for Detection of SA

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
J Clin Virol


. 2020 May 8;129:104427.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104427. Online ahead of print.
Comparison of a Laboratory-Developed Test Targeting the Envelope Gene With Three Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for Detection of SARS-CoV-2


Philip L Bulterys[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Natasha Garamani[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Bryan Stevens[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Malaya K Sahoo[SUP] 1 [/SUP], ChunHong Huang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Catherine A Hogan[SUP] 2 [/SUP], James Zehnder[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Benjamin A Pinsky[SUP] 3 [/SUP]



Affiliations
Free PMC article

Abstract

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.

Keywords: COVID-19; Coronavirus; Diagnostics; SARS-CoV-2.
 
Back
Top Bottom