Dataset Information

Comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2.

ABSTRACT: The global COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid development of tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Studies are required to assess the relative performance of different assays. Here, we compared the performance of two commercial assays, the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 (Roche Diagnostics) and Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid®) tests, and a laboratory developed RT-PCR test adapted for use on the Hologic® Panther Fusion® (Hologic®) instrument as well as Bio-Rad and QIAGEN real-time PCR detection systems. Performance characteristics for each test were determined by testing clinical specimens and reference material. All assays detect the pan-Sarbecovirus E (envelope structural protein) gene plus a SARS-CoV-2-specific target. The limit of detection for the E gene target varied from ?2 copies/reaction to >30 copies/reaction. Due to assay-specific differences in sample processing and nucleic acid extraction, the overall analytical sensitivity ranged from 24 copies/mL specimen to 574 copies/mL specimen. Despite these differences, there was 100 % agreement between the commercial and laboratory developed tests. No false-negative or false-positive SARS-CoV-2 results were observed and there was no cross-reactivity with common respiratory viruses, including endemic coronaviruses.

SUBMITTER: Dust K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7482591 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Dust Kerry K Hedley Adam A Nichol Kim K Stein Derek D Adam Heather H Karlowsky James A JA Bullard Jared J Van Caeseele Paul P Alexander David C DC

Journal of virological methods 20200910

The global COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid development of tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Studies are required to assess the relative performance of different assays. Here, we compared the performance of two commercial assays, the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 (Roche Diagnostics) and Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid®) tests, and a laboratory developed RT-PCR test adapted for use on the Hologic® Panther Fusion® (Hologic®) instrument as well as Bio-Rad and QIAGEN real-time PCR detection systems. Pe ...[more]

PMID: 32920028

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:The debate about the role of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the regulation of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) has focused attention on the analytical performance of all clinical laboratory testing. This study provides data comparing the performance of LDTs and FDA-approved companion diagnostics (FDA-CDs) in proficiency testing (PT) provided by the College of American Pathologists Molecular Oncology Committee. Objective:To compare the analytical performance of LDTs and FDA-CDs on well-characterized PT samples and to compare the practice characteristics of laboratories using these assays. Design, Setting, and Participants:This comparison of PT responses examines the performance of laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists PT for 3 oncology analytes for which both FDA-CDs and LDTs are used: BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS. A total of 6897 PT responses were included: BRAF (n = 2524; 14 PT samples), EGFR (n = 2216; 11 PT samples), and KRAS (n = 2157, 10 PT samples). US Food and Drug Administration companion diagnostics and LDTs are compared for both accuracy and preanalytic practices of the laboratories. Main Outcomes and Measures:As per the College of American Pathologists PT standards, results were scored and the percentages of acceptable responses for each analyte were compared. These were also broken down by the specific variants tested, by kit manufacturer for laboratories using commercial reagents, and by preanalytic practices. Results:From analysis of 6897 PT responses, this study demonstrates that both LDTs and FDA-CDs have excellent performance overall, with both test types exceeding 97% accuracy for all 3 genes (BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS) combined. Rare variant-specific differences did not consistently favor LDTs or FDA-CDs. Additionally, more than 60% of participants using an FDA-CD reported adapting their assay from the approved procedure to allow for a greater breadth of sample types, minimum tumor content, and instrumentation, changing the classification of their assay from FDA-CD to LDT. Conclusions:This study demonstrates the high degree of accuracy and comparable performance of both LDTs and FDA-CDs for 3 oncology analytes. More significantly, the majority of laboratories using FDA-CDs have modified the scope of their assay to allow for more clinical practice variety, rendering them LDTs. These findings support both the excellent and equivalent performance of both LDTs and FDA-CDs in clinical diagnostic testing.

Project description:BackgroundAntigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) can accelerate SARS-CoV-2 testing. As some AgPOCTs have become available, interest is growing in their utility and performance. Here we aimed to compare the analytical sensitivity and specificity of seven commercially available AgPOCT devices.MethodsIn a single-centre, laboratory evaluation study, we compared AgPOCT products from seven suppliers: the Abbott Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test, the RapiGEN BIOCREDIT COVID-19 Ag, the Healgen Coronavirus Ag Rapid Test Cassette (Swab), the Coris BioConcept COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip, the R-Biopharm RIDA QUICK SARS-CoV-2 Antigen, the nal von minden NADAL COVID-19 Ag Test, and the Roche-SD Biosensor SARS-CoV Rapid Antigen Test. Tests were evaluated on recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein, cultured endemic and emerging coronaviruses, stored respiratory samples with known SARS-CoV-2 viral loads, stored samples from patients with respiratory pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2, and self-sampled swabs from healthy volunteers. We estimated analytical sensitivity in terms of approximate viral concentrations (quantified by real-time RT-PCR) that yielded positive AgPOCT results, and specificity in terms of propensity to generate false-positive results.FindingsIn 138 clinical samples with quantified SARS-CoV-2 viral load, the 95% limit of detection (concentration at which 95% of test results were positive) in six of seven AgPOCT products ranged between 2·07 × 106 and 2·86 × 107 copies per swab, with an outlier (RapiGEN) at 1·57 × 1010 copies per swab. The assays showed no cross-reactivity towards cell culture or tissue culture supernatants containing any of the four endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV‑229E, HCoV‑NL63, HCoV‑OC43, or HCoV‑HKU1) or MERS-CoV, with the exception of the Healgen assay in one repeat test on HCoV-HKU1 supernatant. SARS-CoV was cross-detected by all assays. Cumulative specificities among stored clinical samples with non-SARS-CoV-2 infections (n=100) and self-samples from healthy volunteers (n=35; cumulative sample n=135) ranged between 98·5% (95% CI 94·2-99·7) and 100·0% (97·2-100·0) in five products, with two outliers at 94·8% (89·2-97·7; R-Biopharm) and 88·9% (82·1-93·4; Healgen). False-positive results did not appear to be associated with any specific respiratory pathogen.InterpretationThe sensitivity range of most AgPOCTs overlaps with SARS-CoV-2 viral loads typically observed in the first week of symptoms, which marks the infectious period in most patients. The AgPOCTs with limit of detections that approximate virus concentrations at which patients are infectious might enable shortcuts in decision making in various areas of health care and public health.FundingEU's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, German Ministry of Research, German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, German Ministry of Health, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Dataset Information

Comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Publications

Comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets