| Literature DB >> 33011643 |
Dominik Nörz1, André Frontzek2, Ulrich Eigner3, Lisa Oestereich4, Dominic Wichmann5, Stefan Kluge5, Nicole Fischer1, Martin Aepfelbacher1, Susanne Pfefferle1, Marc Lütgehetmann6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic presents a unique challenge to diagnostic laboratories. There are preliminary studies correlating qRT-PCR results from different materials to clinical outcomes, yet, comparability is limited due to the plethora of different assays used for diagnostics. In this study we evaluate clinical performance and linear range for the SARS-CoV-2 IVD (cobas6800/8800 system, a fully automated sample-to-result platform) in different clinically relevant matrix materials outside official specifications.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Cobas 6800; Molecular diagnostics; Quantification; RT-PCR; SARS-CoV-2
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33011643 PMCID: PMC7510425 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104650
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Virol ISSN: 1386-6532 Impact factor: 3.168
Fig. 1Reduction of plaque forming units (PFU) by pretreatment with guanidine hydrochloride solution.
A stock solution of cell culture supernatant containing SARS-CoV-2 (HH-1) was diluted 1:20 in UTM or eSwab medium alone or supplemented 1:1 with cobas PCR Media. A 10-fold dilution series was prepared and 200 μL added to Vero cells grown to fluency in a 24 well plate.
Fig. 2Linear range of Target-1 and Target-2 in different matrix materials.
Linear range of Target-1 and Target-2 in different matrix materials. A stock solution of cell culture supernatant containing SARS-CoV-2 (HH-1) was used to prepare a 10-fold dilution series within indicated materials. A total of 8 repeats was tested per dilution step, each measurement is represented by an individual dot. X-axis: Plaque forming units. Y-axis: PCR cycle threshold. Black dots: measurements within linear range, considered for trendline and slope. Faded dots: measurements outside linear range, not considered for trendline and slope. CPM: cobas PCR media (≤ 40 % guanidine hydrochloride in Tris−HCl). ND: “Not detected”.
Clinical evaluation of the SARS-CoV-2 IVD assay for 180 predetermined respiratory swab samples.
| UCT (comparator assay) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| positive | negative | Total | ||
| SARS-CoV-2 IVD | positive | 89 | 1 | 90 |
| negative | 4 | 86 | 90 | |
| Total: | 93 | 87 | 180 | |
Fig. 3Clinical evaluation of the SARS-CoV-2 IVD compared to the comparator assay, SARS-CoV-2 UCT (utility channel test).
Clinical evaluation of the SARS-CoV-2 IVD compared to the comparator assay, SARS-CoV-2 UCT (utility channel test). Predetermined clinical samples previously analyzed in routine diagnostics were retrieved from storage at −20 °C and subjected to testing with the SARS-CoV-2 IVD. Sample input volume was 400 μL for both assays. X-axis: UCT CT. Y-axis: IVD CT. Blue dots: measurements within linear range of Target-2, considered for trendline and correlation. Orange dots: measurements outside linear range or one Target negative, not considered for trendline and correlation. ND: “Not Detected”.
Fig. 4Evaluation of inter-run variability on four different instruments.
Sets of seven identical spiked samples were sent to different laboratories in Germany for testing with the SARS-CoV-2 IVD. Material types were as indicated. UTM samples were not supplemented with cobas PCR Media. CT values were reported and compared. Hamburg-1: Instrument No1 at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf. Hamburg-2: Instrument No2 at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf. Labor Stein: Moenchengladbach. Labor Limbach: Heidelberg. Box: Median. Whiskers: Range.