Dataset Information

Comparison of real-time and droplet digital PCR to detect and quantify SARS-CoV-2 RNA in plasma.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in plasma has been linked to disease severity and mortality. We compared RT-qPCR to droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in plasma from COVID-19 patients (mild, moderate, and critical disease).

Methods

The presence/concentration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in plasma was compared in three groups of COVID-19 patients (30 outpatients, 30 ward patients and 30 ICU patients) using both RT-qPCR and ddPCR. Plasma was obtained in the first 24h following admission, and RNA was extracted using eMAG. ddPCR was performed using Bio-Rad SARS-CoV-2 detection kit, and RT-qPCR was performed using GeneFinder™ COVID-19 Plus RealAmp Kit. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Science.

Results

SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected, using ddPCR and RT-qPCR, in 91% and 87% of ICU patients, 27% and 23% of ward patients and 3% and 3% of outpatients. The concordance of the results obtained by both methods was excellent (Cohen's kappa index = 0.953). RT-qPCR was able to detect 34/36 (94.4%) patients positive for viral RNA in plasma by ddPCR. Viral RNA load was higher in ICU patients compared with the other groups (P < .001), by both ddPCR and RT-qPCR. AUC analysis revealed Ct values (RT-qPCR) and viral RNA load values (ddPCR) can similarly differentiate between patients admitted to wards and to the ICU (AUC of 0.90 and 0.89, respectively).

Conclusion

Both methods yielded similar prevalence of RNAemia between groups, with ICU patients showing the highest (>85%). RT-qPCR was as useful as ddPCR to detect and quantify SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia in plasma.

SUBMITTER: Tedim AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7995030 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Cell-associated (CA) HIV-1 RNA is considered a potential marker for assessment of viral reservoir dynamics and antiretroviral therapy (ART) response in HIV-infected patients. Recent studies employed sensitive seminested real-time quantitative (q)PCR to quantify CA HIV-1 RNA. Digital PCR has been recently described as an alternative PCR-based technique for absolute quantification with higher accuracy compared to qPCR. Here, a comparison was made between the droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and the seminested qPCR for quantification of unspliced (us) and multiply spliced (ms) CA HIV-1 RNA. Synthetic RNA standards and CA HIV-1 RNA from infected patients on and off ART (N?=?34) were quantified with both methods. Correlations were observed between the methods both for serially diluted synthetic standards (usRNA: R2?=?0.97, msRNA: R2?=?0.92) and patient-derived samples (usRNA: R2?=?0.51, msRNA: R2?=?0.87). Seminested qPCR showed better quantitative linearity, accuracy and sensitivity in the quantification of synthetic standards than ddPCR, especially in the lower quantification ranges. Both methods demonstrated equally high detection rate of usRNA in patient samples on and off ART (91%), whereas ddPCR detected msRNA in larger proportion of samples from ART-treated patients (p?=?0.13). We observed an average agreement between the methods for usRNA quantification in patient samples, albeit with a large standard deviation (bias?=?0.05±0.75 log10). However, a bias of 0.94±0.36 log10 was observed for msRNA. No-template controls were consistently negative in the seminested qPCR, but yielded a positive ddPCR signal for some wells. Therefore, the false positive signals may have affected the detection power of ddPCR in this study. Digital PCR is promising for HIV nucleic acid quantification, but the false positive signals need further attention. Quantitative assays for CA HIV RNA have the potential to improve monitoring of patients on ART and to be used in clinical studies aimed at HIV eradication, but should be cross-validated by multiple laboratories prior to wider use.