Interpret with caution: An evaluation of the commercial AusDiagnostics versus in-house developed assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus
•Ct values of E gene were significantly lower than RdRp gene target.•COVID-19 case definition not specific, other respiratory viruses in 42 % of samples.•AusDiagnostics assay sensitive but not specific for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. There is limited data on the analytical performance of commercial...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical virology 2020-06, Vol.127, p.104374-104374, Article 104374 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | •Ct values of E gene were significantly lower than RdRp gene target.•COVID-19 case definition not specific, other respiratory viruses in 42 % of samples.•AusDiagnostics assay sensitive but not specific for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.
There is limited data on the analytical performance of commercial nucleic acid tests (NATs) for laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection.
Nasopharyngeal, combined nose and throat swabs, nasopharyngeal aspirates and sputum was collected from persons with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, serial dilutions of SARS-CoV-2 viral cultures and synthetic positive controls (gBlocks, Integrated DNA Technologies) were tested using i) AusDiagnostics assay (AusDiagnostics Pty Ltd); ii) in-house developed assays targeting the E and RdRp genes; iii) multiplex PCR assay targeting endemic respiratory viruses. Discrepant SARS-CoV-2 results were resolved by testing the N, ORF1b, ORF1ab and M genes.
Of 52 clinical samples collected from 50 persons tested, respiratory viruses were detected in 22 samples (42 %), including SARS CoV-2 (n = 5), rhinovirus (n = 7), enterovirus (n = 5), influenza B (n = 4), hMPV (n = 5), influenza A (n = 2), PIV-2 (n = 1), RSV (n = 2), CoV-NL63 (n = 1) and CoV-229E (n = 1). SARS-CoV-2 was detected in four additional samples by the AusDiagnostics assay. Using the in-house assays as the "gold standard", the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the AusDiagnostics assay was 100 %, 92.16 %, 55.56 % and 100 % respectively.
The Ct values of the real-time in-house-developed PCR assay targeting the E gene was significantly lower than the corresponding RdRp gene assay when applied to clinical samples, viral culture and positive controls (mean 21.75 vs 28.1, p = 0.0031).
The AusDiagnostics assay is not specific for the detection SARS-CoV-2. Any positive results should be confirmed using another NAT or sequencing. The case definition used to investigate persons with suspected COVID-19 infection is not specific. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1386-6532 1873-5967 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104374 |