Jakob T Sieker1, Coby Horowitz1, Cheng-Tsung K Hu1, Meriane Lacombe-Daphnis1, Bernadette Chirokas1, Coteia Pina1, Nicholas E Heger1, Arthur R Rabson1, Ming Zhou1, Steven A Bogen1, Gary L Horowitz1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by reverse transcription PCR is the primary method to diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the analytic sensitivity required is not well defined and it is unclear how available assays compare.
METHODS: For the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay (m2000; Abbott Molecular), we determined that it could detect viral concentrations as low as 26 copies/mL, we defined the relationship between cycle number and viral concentrations, and we tested naso- and oropharyngeal swab specimens from 8538 consecutive individuals. Using the m2000 as a reference assay method, we described the distribution of viral concentrations in these patients. We then used selected clinical specimens to determine the positive percent agreement of 2 other assays with more rapid turnaround times [Cepheid Xpert Xpress (GeneXpert; Cepheid); n = 27] and a laboratory developed test on the Luminex ARIES system [ARIES LDT (Luminex); n = 50] as a function of virus concentrations, from which we projected their false-negative rates in our patient population.
RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 27% (95% CI: 26%-28%) of all specimens. Estimated viral concentrations were widely distributed, and 17% (95% CI: 16%-19%) of positive individuals had viral concentrations <845 copies/mL. Positive percent agreement was strongly related to viral concentration, and reliable detection (i.e., ≥95%) was observed at concentrations >100 copies/mL for the GeneXpert but not the ARIES LDT, corresponding to projected false-negative rates of 4% (95% CI: 0%-21%) and 27% (95% CI: 11%-46%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Substantial proportions of clinical specimens have low to moderate viral concentrations and may be missed by methods with less analytic sensitivity. © American Association for Clinical Chemistry 2020. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
BACKGROUND: Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by reverse transcription PCR is the primary method to diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the analytic sensitivity required is not well defined and it is unclear how available assays compare.
METHODS: For the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay (m2000; Abbott Molecular), we determined that it could detect viral concentrations as low as 26 copies/mL, we defined the relationship between cycle number and viral concentrations, and we tested naso- and oropharyngeal swab specimens from 8538 consecutive individuals. Using the m2000 as a reference assay method, we described the distribution of viral concentrations in these patients. We then used selected clinical specimens to determine the positive percent agreement of 2 other assays with more rapid turnaround times [Cepheid Xpert Xpress (GeneXpert; Cepheid); n = 27] and a laboratory developed test on the Luminex ARIES system [ARIES LDT (Luminex); n = 50] as a function of virus concentrations, from which we projected their false-negative rates in our patient population.
RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 27% (95% CI: 26%-28%) of all specimens. Estimated viral concentrations were widely distributed, and 17% (95% CI: 16%-19%) of positive individuals had viral concentrations <845 copies/mL. Positive percent agreement was strongly related to viral concentration, and reliable detection (i.e., ≥95%) was observed at concentrations >100 copies/mL for the GeneXpert but not the ARIES LDT, corresponding to projected false-negative rates of 4% (95% CI: 0%-21%) and 27% (95% CI: 11%-46%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Substantial proportions of clinical specimens have low to moderate viral concentrations and may be missed by methods with less analytic sensitivity. © American Association for Clinical Chemistry 2020. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Entities:
Year: 2021
PMID： 33674879 DOI： 10.1093/jalm/jfaa187
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Appl Lab Med ISSN： 2475-7241