Comparative evaluation of six nucleic acid amplification kits for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection

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.

Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Absolute Lymphocyte Count as Early Diagnostic Tools for Corona Virus Disease 2019

“…This could have potentially influenced the statistical significance of our results. Additionally, different RT-PCR kits show remarkable differences in terms of their relative sensitivity and specificity, and these observations are quite well-documented [ 31 , 32 ]. This could have impacted the validity of our statistical conclusion.…”

A comparison of SARS-CoV-2 RNA extraction with the QuickGene-810 Nucleic Acid Isolation System compared to the EZ1 Advanced DSP Virus Kit

“…It demonstrated a sensitivity of 100 % compared to the reference laboratory method and viral detection down to 2.80 copies μl −1 (2800 copies ml –1 ) [9]. There are a range of other well-established commercial extraction platforms used in pathogen diagnostics for the molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples, and all of the major commercial methods tested have been found to have good agreement, with recommendations that they could be interchanged [10–13]. The difficulties experienced worldwide in procuring laboratory equipment and reagents have necessitated diagnostic microbiology laboratories to explore other extraction and testing platforms on the market.…”

Nachweisverfahren in der SARS-CoV-2-Diagnostik – Antigen-, Antikörper-, und Nukleinsäure-basierte Tests

“…Dazu reicht die Sensitivität der Antigenschnelltests nicht aus. Die Polymerasekettenreaktion (PCR) ermöglicht aufgrund sehr hoher Sensitivität und Spezifität von bis zu 100% [11]…”