tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob
. 2021 May 22;20(1):38.
doi: 10.1186/s12941-021-00443-w.
Comparative evaluation of six nucleic acid amplification kits for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection
Shuang Wu[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], Xiaolu Shi[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], Qiongcheng Chen[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Yixiang Jiang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Le Zuo[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Lei Wang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Min Jiang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Yiman Lin[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Shisong Fang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Bo Peng[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Weihua Wu[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Hui Liu[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Renli Zhang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Patrick S L Kwan[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Qinghua Hu[SUP] 2 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Background: SARS-CoV-2 is a newly emerged coronavirus, causing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in December, 2019. As drugs and vaccines of COVID-19 remain in development, accurate virus detection plays a crucial role in the current public health crisis. Quantitative real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) kits have been reliably used for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, whereas isothermal nucleic acid amplification-based point-of-care automated kits have also been considered as a simpler and rapid alternative. However, as these kits have only been developed and applied clinically within a short timeframe, their clinical performance has not been adequately evaluated to date. We describe a comparative study between a newly developed cross-priming isothermal amplification (CPA) kit (Kit A) and five RT-qPCR kits (Kits B-F) to evaluate their sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and accuracy.
Methods: Fifty-two clinical samples were used including throat swabs (n = 30), nasal swabs (n = 7), nasopharyngeal swabs (n = 7) and sputum specimens (n = 8), comprising confirmed (n = 26) and negative cases (n = 26). SARS-CoV-2 detection was simultaneously performed on each sample using six nucleic acid amplification kits. The sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) and the accuracy for each kit were assessed using clinical manifestation and molecular diagnoses as the reference standard. Reproducibility for RT-qPCR kits was evaluated in triplicate by three different operators using a SARS-CoV-2 RNA-positive sample. On the basis of the six kits' evaluation results, CPA kit (Kit A) and two RT-qPCR Kits (Kit B and F) were applied to the SARS-CoV-2 detection in close-contacts of COVID-19 patients.
Results: For Kit A, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV/NPV and accuracy were 100%. Among the five RT-qPCR kits, Kits B, C and F had good agreement with the clinical diagnostic reports (Kappa ≥ 0.75); Kits D and E were less congruent (0.4 ≤ Kappa < 0.75). Differences between all kits were statistically significant (P < 0.001). The reproducibility of RT-qPCR kits was determined using a coefficients of variation (CV) between 0.95% and 2.57%, indicating good reproducibility.
Conclusions: This is the first comparative study to evaluate CPA and RT-qPCR kits' specificity and sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and could serve as a reference for clinical laboratories, thus informing testing protocols amid the rapidly progressing COVID-19 pandemic.
Keywords: COVID-19; Cross-priming isothermal amplification (CPA); Nucleic acid detection; Real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-qPCR); SARS-CoV-2.
. 2021 May 22;20(1):38.
doi: 10.1186/s12941-021-00443-w.
Comparative evaluation of six nucleic acid amplification kits for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection
Shuang Wu[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], Xiaolu Shi[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], Qiongcheng Chen[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Yixiang Jiang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Le Zuo[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Lei Wang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Min Jiang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Yiman Lin[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Shisong Fang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Bo Peng[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Weihua Wu[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Hui Liu[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Renli Zhang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Patrick S L Kwan[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Qinghua Hu[SUP] 2 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 34022903
- DOI: 10.1186/s12941-021-00443-w
Abstract
Background: SARS-CoV-2 is a newly emerged coronavirus, causing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in December, 2019. As drugs and vaccines of COVID-19 remain in development, accurate virus detection plays a crucial role in the current public health crisis. Quantitative real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) kits have been reliably used for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, whereas isothermal nucleic acid amplification-based point-of-care automated kits have also been considered as a simpler and rapid alternative. However, as these kits have only been developed and applied clinically within a short timeframe, their clinical performance has not been adequately evaluated to date. We describe a comparative study between a newly developed cross-priming isothermal amplification (CPA) kit (Kit A) and five RT-qPCR kits (Kits B-F) to evaluate their sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and accuracy.
Methods: Fifty-two clinical samples were used including throat swabs (n = 30), nasal swabs (n = 7), nasopharyngeal swabs (n = 7) and sputum specimens (n = 8), comprising confirmed (n = 26) and negative cases (n = 26). SARS-CoV-2 detection was simultaneously performed on each sample using six nucleic acid amplification kits. The sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) and the accuracy for each kit were assessed using clinical manifestation and molecular diagnoses as the reference standard. Reproducibility for RT-qPCR kits was evaluated in triplicate by three different operators using a SARS-CoV-2 RNA-positive sample. On the basis of the six kits' evaluation results, CPA kit (Kit A) and two RT-qPCR Kits (Kit B and F) were applied to the SARS-CoV-2 detection in close-contacts of COVID-19 patients.
Results: For Kit A, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV/NPV and accuracy were 100%. Among the five RT-qPCR kits, Kits B, C and F had good agreement with the clinical diagnostic reports (Kappa ≥ 0.75); Kits D and E were less congruent (0.4 ≤ Kappa < 0.75). Differences between all kits were statistically significant (P < 0.001). The reproducibility of RT-qPCR kits was determined using a coefficients of variation (CV) between 0.95% and 2.57%, indicating good reproducibility.
Conclusions: This is the first comparative study to evaluate CPA and RT-qPCR kits' specificity and sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and could serve as a reference for clinical laboratories, thus informing testing protocols amid the rapidly progressing COVID-19 pandemic.
Keywords: COVID-19; Cross-priming isothermal amplification (CPA); Nucleic acid detection; Real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-qPCR); SARS-CoV-2.