| Literature DB >> 33539485 |
Chika Kingsley Onwuamah1, Azuka Patrick Okwuraiwe1, Olumuyiwa B Salu2, Joseph O Shaibu1, Nnaemeka Ndodo3, Samuel O Amoo1, Leona C Okoli1, Fehintola A Ige1, Rahaman A Ahmed1, Munir Akinwale Bankole4, Judith O Sokei1, Bamidele Paul Mutiu4, James Ayorinde5, Babatunde Akeem Saka6, Celestina Obiekea3, Nwando Mba3, Richard A Adegbola1, Sunday Omilabu1,2, Chikwe Ihekweazu7, Babatunde Lawal Salako8, Rosemary Audu1.
Abstract
A key element in containing the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 infection is quality diagnostics which is affected by several factors. We now report the comparative performance of five real-time diagnostic assays. Nasopharyngeal swab samples were obtained from persons seeking a diagnosis for SARS-CoV-2 infection in Lagos, Nigeria. The comparison was performed on the same negative, low, and high-positive sample set, with viral RNA extracted using the Qiagen Viral RNA Kit. All five assays are one-step reverse transcriptase real-time PCR assays. Testing was done according to each assay's manufacturer instructions for use using real-time PCR platforms. 63 samples were tested using the five qPCR assays, comprising of 15 negative samples, 15 positive samples (Ct = 16-30; one Ct = 35), and 33 samples with Tib MolBiol E-gene Ct value ranging from 36-41. All assays detected all high positive samples correctly. Three assays correctly identified all negative samples while two assays each failed to correctly identify one different negative sample. The consistent detection of positive samples at different Ct/Cq values gives an indication of when to repeat testing and/or establish more stringent in-house cut-off value. The varied performance of different diagnostic assays, mostly with emergency use approvals, for a novel virus is expected. Comparative assays' performance reported may guide laboratories to determine both their repeat testing Ct/Cq range and/or cut-off value.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33539485 PMCID: PMC7861429 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246637
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240