Analytical Performance Evaluation of Three Commercial Rapid Nucleic Acid Assays for SARS-CoV-2.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
To cope with the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, several rapid nucleic acid assays have been approved for use, but the analytical performance has not been well evaluated. In this report, two key performance parameters, analytical sensitivity (limit of detection) and reproducibility, of three approved rapid nucleic acid assays were assessed using heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 culture supernatants quantified by digital PCR.Methods
The LOD (limit of detection) and reproducibility of three approved rapid nucleic acid assays using their own instruments were assessed, while the LOD and reproducibility of two assays on a 7500 Real-Time instrument were assessed at the same time.Results
Using their own instruments, 100% of samples with 1150 copies/mL viral RNA could be detected by the Da An and Coyote assays, while 90% of samples could be detected by the Ustar assay; yet, for 525 copies/mL and 287.5 copies/mL viral RNA, the detection rate of the Ustar assay was higher than that of either the Da An or Coyote assays. However, the three assays did not produce statistically significant results with the three different concentrations of viral RNA (P=0.46, 0.46 and 0.46). Using a 7500 Real-Time instrument, Da An and Coyote assays did not produce statistically significant results with the 1150, 525 and 287.5 copies/mL viral RNA (P>0.99, >0.99 and >0.99). The positive and negative detection rates of the three assays in the intra- and inter-assay stages were 100% on both their own instruments and the 7500 real-time PCR instrument.Conclusion
Positive or strongly positive samples can be detected by the rapid nucleic acid assay, but the analytical performance should be optimized, and comprehensive evaluations are also required.
SUBMITTER: Yi J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8374845 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveAnalytical validation of newly released SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays in the clinical laboratory is crucial to ensure sufficient performance in respect to its intended use. We aimed to assess analytical and diagnostic performance of 8 (semi-)quantitative assays detecting anti-nucleocapsid IgG (Euroimmun, Id-Vet) or total Ig (Roche), anti-spike protein IgG (Euroimmun, Theradiag, DiaSorin, Thermo Fisher) or both (Theradiag) and 2 rapid lateral flow assays (LFA) (AAZ-LMB and Theradiag).MethodsSpecificity was evaluated using a cross-reactivity panel of 85 pre-pandemic serum samples. Sensitivity was determined at both the manufacturer's and a 95% specificity cut-off level, using 81 serum samples of patients with a positive rRT-PCR. Sensitivity was determined in function of time post symptoms onset.ResultsSpecificity for all assays ranged from 92.9% to 100% (Roche and Thermo Fisher) with the exception of the Theradiag IgM LFA (82.4%). Sensitivity in asymptomatic patients ranged between 41.7% and 58.3%. Sensitivity on samples taken <10 days since symptom onset was low (23.3%-66.7%) and increased on samples taken between 10 and 20 days and > 20 days since symptom onset (80%-96% and 92.9%-100%, respectively). From 20 days after symptom onset, the Roche, Id-vet and Thermo Fisher assays all met the sensitivity (>95%) and specificity (>97%) targets determined by the WHO. Antibody signal response was significantly higher in the critically ill patient group.ConclusionAntibody detection can complement rRT-PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19, especially in the later stage, or in asymptomatic patients for epidemiological purposes. Addition of IgM in LFAs did not improve sensitivity.
| S-EPMC7989098 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sensitive and specific severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic assays are needed to inform diagnostic, therapeutic, and public health decision-making. We evaluated three commercial serologic assays as stand-alone tests and as components of two-test algorithms. Two nucleocapsid antibody tests (Abbott IgG and Roche total antibody) and one spike protein antibody test (DiaSorin IgG) were included. We assessed sensitivity using 128 serum samples from symptomatic PCR-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-infected patients and specificity using 1,204 samples submitted for routine serology prior to COVID-19's emergence, plus 64 pandemic-era samples from SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative patients with respiratory symptoms. Assays were evaluated as stand-alone tests and as components of a two-test algorithm in which positive results obtained using one assay were verified using a second assay. The two nucleocapsid antibody tests were more sensitive than the spike protein antibody test overall (70% and 70% versus 57%; P ≤ 0.003), with pronounced differences observed using samples collected 7 to 14 days after symptom onset. All three assays were comparably sensitive (≥89%; P ≥ 0.13) using samples collected >14 days after symptom onset. Specificity was higher using the nucleocapsid antibody tests (99.3% and 99.7%) than using the spike protein antibody test (97.8%; P ≤ 0.002). When any two assays were paired in a two-test algorithm, the specificity was 99.9% (P < 0.0001 to 0.25 compared with the individual assays), and the positive predictive value (PPV) improved substantially, with a minimal effect on the negative predictive value (NPV). In conclusion, two nucleocapsid antibody tests outperformed a spike protein antibody test. Pairing two different serologic tests in a two-test algorithm improves the PPV, compared with the individual assays alone, while maintaining the NPV.
| S-EPMC7771444 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was first isolated from Wuhan city, China and within three months, the global community was challenged with a devastating pandemic. The rapid spread of the virus challenged diagnostic laboratories to rapidly develop molecular diagnostic methods. As SARS CoV-2 assays became available for testing on existing molecular platforms, laboratories devoted unprecedented energy and resources into evaluating the analytical performance of the new tests and in some cases developed their own diagnostic assays under FDA-EUA guidance. This study compares the validation of three different molecular assays at the Johns Hopkins Molecular Virology laboratory: the RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, ePlex® SARS-CoV-2, and the CDC COVID-19 RT-PCR tests. Overall, our studies indicate a comparable analytical performance of the three assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC7194987 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the diagnostic performance of lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFAs) of 4 different manufacturers to identify SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgM, IgG, or total), comparing them with the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) or the clinical defined test (definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection, respectively).MethodsOne hundred nineteen serum samples were randomly selected by convenience and distributed in the following groups: (1) group with SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 82; RT-qPCR positive [definite, n = 70] and probable [n = 12]); (2) other diseases (n = 27; other viruses identified [n = 8] and SARS of other etiologies [n = 19]); and (3) healthy control group (n = 10). LFAs of 4 manufacturers were compared: MedTest Coronavirus (COVID-19) IgG/IgM (MedLevensohn, Brazil); COVID-19 IgG/IgM ECO Test (Ecodiagnóstica, Brazil); Camtech COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test Kit (Camtech Diagnostics Pte Ltd, Singapore); and 1-Step COVID-19 Test for total antibodies (Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech Co., China).ResultsThe 4 tests studied showed high diagnostic performance characteristics for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. The best measures were for the Wondfo test: sensitivity (86.59%; 95% CI: 77.26-93.11%), specificity (100%; 90.51-100%), DOR (257; 60-1,008), LR+ (33.43; 4.82-231.85), LR- (0.13; 0.08-0.23), accuracy (90.76%; 84.06-95.29%), and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) 0.82. Although considering only the probable SARS-CoV-2 infection (PCR-) cases, all the kits studied showed limited values.ConclusionOur data demonstrate the excellent performance of LFA for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgM and IgG antibodies among the different kits. LFA tests cannot replace molecular diagnostics but should be used as an additional screening tool.
| S-EPMC8339017 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrently, SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection using real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) is the standard diagnostic test for COVID-19 infection. Various rRT-PCR assays are currently used worldwide, targeting different genes of the SARS-CoV-2. Here, we compared the analytical sensitivity and clinical performance (sensitivity and specificity) of Allplex SARS-CoV-2/FluA/FluB/RSV assay (Seegene), Standard M nCoV real-time detection kit (SD Biosensor), and U-TOP COVID-19 detection kit (Seasun Biomaterials) for SARS-CoV-2 detection.MethodsTwo hundred and forty-nine nasopharyngeal swab samples were evaluated to compare the clinical performance of the rRT-PCR assays. For the analytical performance evaluation, two RNA controls with known viral loads-SARS-CoV-2 RNA control and SARS-COV-2 B.1.351 RNA control-were used to investigate the potential impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants, particularly the B.1.351 lineage.ResultsLimits of detection ranged from 650 to 1300 copies/ml for rRT-PCR assays, and the mean differences in cycle threshold (Ct ) values of the two RNA controls were within 1.0 for each target in the rRT-PCR assays (0.05-0.73), without any prominent Ct value shift or dropouts in the SARS-COV-2 B.1.351 RNA control. Using the consensus criterion as the reference standard, 89 samples were positive, whereas 160 were negative. The overall clinical performance of rRT-PCR assays was comparable (sensitivity 98.88%-100%; specificity 99.38%-100%), whereas the sensitivities of each target gene were more variable.ConclusionsThe three rRT-PCR assays showed comparable analytical sensitivity and clinical performance. The analytical and clinical sensitivities of each target gene were influenced more by the primer and probe design than the target gene itself.
| S-EPMC8842162 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hundreds of RT-qPCR kits are available in the market for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, some of them with emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food Drug Administration (FDA) or their country of origin agency, but also many of them without any independent clinical performance evaluation. We performed a clinical evaluation for two Chinese SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR kits available in South America, COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Test Kit (eDiagnosis Biomedicine, Wuhan, China) and 2019-nCoV Nucleic Acid Diagnostic Kit (Sansure Biotech, Changsha, China), for RT-qPCR SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using the FDA EUA 2019-nCoV CDC kit (IDT, Coralville, IA) as gold standard. We found an excellent clinical performance and analytical sensitivity for both kits with sensitivity values of 100% and 95.3% and estimated limit of detection of 500 copies/mL and 1,000 copies/mL, for eDiagnosis and Sansure Biotech kits, respectively. COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Test Kit (eDiagnosis) and 2019-nCoV Nucleic Acid Diagnostic Kit (Sansure Biotech) are both made in China and hold EUA by the Chinese CDC. Also, Sansure Biotech kit has EUA by the FDA. In conclusion, our results endorse the use of these two commercially available kits imported to Ecuador for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, as they had the similar clinical performance as the gold standard from the CDC.
| S-EPMC8045661 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The increasing COVID-19 widespread has created the necessity to assess the diagnostic accuracy of newly introduced (RT-PCR based) assays for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in respiratory tract samples. We compared the results of the Allplex™ 2019-nCoV assay with those of the Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct assay and the Quanty COVID-19 assay, respectively, all performed on 125 nasal/oropharyngeal swab samples of patients with COVID-19 suspicion. Fifty-four samples were positive, and 71 were negative with the Allplex™ assay, whereas 47 of 54 samples were also positive with the Simplexa™ assay. The Quanty assay detected 55 positive samples, including the 54 positive samples with the Allplex™ assay and 1 sample that was Allplex™ negative but Simplexa™ positive. Using a consensus result criterion as the reference standard allowed to resolve the eight samples with discordant results (one Allplex™ negative and seven Simplexa™ negative) as truly false negative. Interestingly, a Spearman's negative association was found between the viral RNA loads quantified by the Quanty assay and the CT values of RT PCRs performed with either the Allplex™ assay or the Simplexa™ assay. However, the strength of this association was higher for the Allplex™ assay (N gene, ρ = - 0.92; RdRP gene, ρ = - 0.91) than for the Simplexa™ assay (ORF1ab gene, ρ = - 0.65; S gene, ρ = - 0.80). The Allplex™ 2019-nCoV, the Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct, and the Quanty COVID-19 assays yielded comparable results. However, the role these assays might play in future clinical practice warrants larger comparison studies.
| S-EPMC7471581 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic demonstrated the need for accurate diagnostic testing for the early detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Although the pandemic has ended, accurate assays are still needed to monitor viral spread at national levels and beyond through population and wastewater surveillance. To enhance early detection, SARS-CoV-2 assays should have high diagnostic accuracy and should be validated to assure accurate results. Three distinct SARS-CoV-2 assays were evaluated with clinical samples using the VALCOR (VALidation of SARS-CORona Virus-2 assays) framework, with the TaqPath COVID-19 assay (ThermoFisher Scientific, USA) as a comparator. We evaluated clinical sensitivity, specificity, limit of detection (LOD), and overall concordance between comparator and three index Allplex SARS-CoV-2 assays (Seegene, South Korea): Allplex-SC2, Allplex-SC2Fast (Fast PCR), and Allplex-SC2FabR (SARS-CoV-2/FluA/FluB/respiratory syncytial virus). Analytical performance and LOD of index assays were assessed using a dilution series of three synthetic SARS-CoV-2 sequence reference materials (RMs). Ninety SARS-CoV-2 positives and 90 SARS-CoV-2 negatives were tested. All Allplex assays had 100.0% sensitivity (95%CI = 95.9%-100.0%). Allplex-SC2 and Allplex-SC2Fast assays had 97.8% specificity (95%CI = 92.3%-99.7%) and 98.9% overall concordance [κ = 0.978 (95%CI = 0.947-1.000)]. Allplex-SC2FabR assay showed 100.0% specificity (95%CI = 95.9%-100.0%) and 100.0% overall concordance [κ = 1.000 (95%CI = 1.000-1.000)]. LOD assessment of index assays revealed detection down to 2.61 × 102 copies/mL in clinical samples, while the analytical LOD was 9.00 × 102 copies/mL. In conclusion, the evaluation of the three Seegene Allplex SARS-CoV-2 assays showed high sensitivity and specificity and an overall good assay concordance with the comparator. The assays showed low analytical LOD using RM and even a slightly lower LOD in clinical samples. Non-overlapping target gene sequences between SARS-CoV-2 assays and RMs emphasize the need for aligning targeted sequences of diagnostic assays and RMs.IMPORTANCEThe coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has a significant impact on global public health, economies, and societies. As shown through the first phases of the pandemic, accurate and timely diagnosis is crucial for disease control, prevention, and monitoring. Though the pandemic phase of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has concluded, diagnostic assays remain in demand to monitor SARS-CoV-2 at the individual patient level, regionally, and nationally, as well as to remain an infectious disease preparedness instrument to monitor any new SARS-CoV-2 dissemination across borders using population and wastewater surveillance. The anticipation by WHO and central health care policy entities such as the Center for Disease Control, EMA, and multiple national health authorities is that SARS-CoV-2 will reside as an endemic respiratory disease for years to come. The key strategic consideration is hence shifting from combating a pandemic situation with a high number of patients to instead allowing precise diagnostics of suspected patients with the intention of correct management in a low-prevalence setting.
| S-EPMC10846132 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Serological tests are crucial tools for assessments of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, infection and potential immunity. Their appropriate use and interpretation require accurate assay performance data. We conducted an evaluation of 10 lateral flow assays (LFAs) and two ELISAs to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The specimen set comprised 128 plasma or serum samples from 79 symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive individuals; 108 pre-COVID-19 negative controls; and 52 recent samples from individuals who underwent respiratory viral testing but were not diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Samples were blinded and LFA results were interpreted by two independent readers, using a standardized intensity scoring system. Among specimens from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive individuals, the percent seropositive increased with time interval, peaking at 81.8-100.0% in samples taken >20 days after symptom onset. Test specificity ranged from 84.3-100.0% in pre-COVID-19 specimens. Specificity was higher when weak LFA bands were considered negative, but this decreased sensitivity. IgM detection was more variable than IgG, and detection was highest when IgM and IgG results were combined. Agreement between ELISAs and LFAs ranged from 75.7-94.8%. No consistent cross-reactivity was observed. Our evaluation showed heterogeneous assay performance. Reader training is key to reliable LFA performance, and can be tailored for survey goals. Informed use of serology will require evaluations covering the full spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 infections, from asymptomatic and mild infection to severe disease, and later convalescence. Well-designed studies to elucidate the mechanisms and serological correlates of protective immunity will be crucial to guide rational clinical and public health policies.
| S-EPMC7273265 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The virus neutralization test (VNT) is the reference for the assessment of the functional ability of neutralizing antibodies (NAb) to block SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells. New competitive immunoassays measuring antibodies preventing interaction between the spike protein and its cellular receptor are proposed as surrogate VNT (sVNT). We tested three commercial sVNT (a qualitative immunochromatographic test and two quantitative immunoassays named YHLO and TECO) together with a conventional anti-spike IgG assay (bioMérieux) in comparison with an in-house plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT50) using the original 19A strain and different variants of concern (VOC), on a panel of 306 sera from naturally-infected or vaccinated patients. The qualitative test was rapidly discarded because of poor sensitivity and specificity. Areas under the curve of YHLO and TECO assays were, respectively, 85.83 and 84.07 (p-value >0.05) using a positivity threshold of 20 for PRNT50, and 95.63 and 90.35 (p-value =0.02) using a threshold of 80. However, the performances of YHLO and bioMérieux were very close for both thresholds, demonstrating the absence of added value of sVNT compared to a conventional assay for the evaluation of the presence of NAb in seropositive subjects. In addition, the PRNT50 assay showed a reduction of NAb titers towards different VOC in comparison to the 19A strain that could not be appreciated by the commercial tests. Despite the good correlation between the anti-spike antibody titer and the titer of NAb by PRNT50, our results highlight the difficulty to distinguish true NAb among the anti-RBD antibodies with commercial user-friendly immunoassays.
| S-EPMC9044730 | biostudies-literature