• 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 . Evaluation of the RealStar? SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Kit RUO Performances and Limit of Detection

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
J Clin Virol


. 2020 Jun 29;129:104520.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104520. Online ahead of print.
Evaluation of the RealStar? SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Kit RUO Performances and Limit of Detection


Benoit Visseaux[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Quentin Le Hingrat[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Gilles Collin[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Valentine Ferr?[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Alexandre Storto[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Houria Ichou[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Donia Bouzid[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Nora Poey[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Etienne de Montmollin[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Diane Descamps[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Nadhira Houhou-Fidouh[SUP] 3 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Background: The use of efficient, reliable and sensitive PCR assays is a cornerstone in the race to contain the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In this work we performed an independent evaluation of the RealStar? SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Kit Researh Use Only (Altona) for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
Methods: A comparative limit of detection (LoD) assessment was performed between RealStar? SARS-CoV-2 and the currently WHO recommended RT-PCR (WHO-PCR) workflow using a quantified clinical sample. Assessment of the RealStar? SARS-CoV-2 assay was also performed using 83 primary clinical samples in comparison with the WHO-PCR.
Results: The RealStar? SARS-CoV-2 demonstrated a slightly higher sensitivity than the WHO recommended assay with a limit of detection at 625 copies/mL instead of 1250 copies/mL for the WHO-PCR in our conditions. The overall percent agreement between RealStar? SARS-CoV-2 and WHO-PCR on 83 clinical samples was 97.6 % (81/83) with a sensitivity at 97.8 % (45/46) and specificity at 97.3 % (36/37). No cross reaction was encountered for the other human coronaviruses (HKU1, OC43, NL63, 229E).
Conclusions: In this comparison of the RealStar? SARS-CoV-2 assay with the reference WHO assay, we observed a slightly better sensitivity of the RealStar? assay. It provides a robust option for all molecular biology laboratories, with a strong real-life LoD and is compatible with various real-time PCR platforms.

Keywords: COVID-19; RT-PCR; SARS-CoV-2; Sensitivity.
 
Back
Top Bottom