Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Analysis of external quality assessment samples revealed crucial performance differences between commercial RT-PCR assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection when taking extraction methods and real-time-PCR instruments into account

View ORCID ProfileMonika Malecki, Jessica Luesebrink, Andreas Wendel, Frauke Mattner
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.18.20185744
Monika Malecki
aInstitute of Hygiene, Cologne Merheim Medical Centre, University Hospital of Witten/Herdecke, Cologne, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Monika Malecki
  • For correspondence: maleckim@kliniken-koeln.de
Jessica Luesebrink
bInstitute of Pathology, Cologne Merheim Medical Centre, University Hospital of Witten/Herdecke, Cologne, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andreas Wendel
aInstitute of Hygiene, Cologne Merheim Medical Centre, University Hospital of Witten/Herdecke, Cologne, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Frauke Mattner
aInstitute of Hygiene, Cologne Merheim Medical Centre, University Hospital of Witten/Herdecke, Cologne, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

In limelight of the ongoing pandemic SARS-CoV-2 testing is critical for the diagnosis of infected patients, contact-tracing and mitigating the transmission. Diagnostic laboratories are expected to provide appropriate testing with maximum accuracy. Real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) is the diagnostic standard yet many commercial diagnostic kits have become available. However, only a handful of studies have reviewed their performance in clinical settings. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the overall analytical matrix including the extraction kit (BD MAX, Promega, Qiagen), the PCR instrument (Agilent Mx3005P, BD MAX, Qiagen Rotor-Gene, Roche Cobas z 480) and the RT-PCR assay (Altona Diagnostics, CerTest Biotec, R-Biopharm AG) using predefined samples from proficiency testing organizers.

The greatest difference of the Ct values between the matrices was 9 cycles. One borderline sample could not be detected by 3 out of 12 analytical matrices and yielded a false negative result. We therefore conclude that diagnostic laboratories should take the complete analytical matrix in addition to the performance values published by the manufacturer for a respective RT-PCR kit into account. With limited resources laboratories have to validate a wide range of kits to determine appropriate analytical matrices for detecting SARS-CoV-2 reliably. The interpretation of clinical results has to be adapted accordingly.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines. The samples examined in the manuscript have been acquired from commercial proficiency testing organizers, no human samples and/or data were used. The samples originated from in vitro systems, which I mentioned in the method section.

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

Data available within the article.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted September 23, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Analysis of external quality assessment samples revealed crucial performance differences between commercial RT-PCR assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection when taking extraction methods and real-time-PCR instruments into account
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Analysis of external quality assessment samples revealed crucial performance differences between commercial RT-PCR assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection when taking extraction methods and real-time-PCR instruments into account
Monika Malecki, Jessica Luesebrink, Andreas Wendel, Frauke Mattner
medRxiv 2020.09.18.20185744; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.18.20185744
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Analysis of external quality assessment samples revealed crucial performance differences between commercial RT-PCR assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection when taking extraction methods and real-time-PCR instruments into account
Monika Malecki, Jessica Luesebrink, Andreas Wendel, Frauke Mattner
medRxiv 2020.09.18.20185744; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.18.20185744

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (280)
  • Allergy and Immunology (579)
  • Anesthesia (140)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1947)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (252)
  • Dermatology (184)
  • Emergency Medicine (333)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (699)
  • Epidemiology (11102)
  • Forensic Medicine (8)
  • Gastroenterology (624)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (3168)
  • Geriatric Medicine (309)
  • Health Economics (561)
  • Health Informatics (2042)
  • Health Policy (863)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (782)
  • Hematology (310)
  • HIV/AIDS (682)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (12720)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (707)
  • Medical Education (317)
  • Medical Ethics (92)
  • Nephrology (334)
  • Neurology (2986)
  • Nursing (164)
  • Nutrition (463)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (589)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (614)
  • Oncology (1552)
  • Ophthalmology (477)
  • Orthopedics (185)
  • Otolaryngology (266)
  • Pain Medicine (202)
  • Palliative Medicine (57)
  • Pathology (403)
  • Pediatrics (912)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (381)
  • Primary Care Research (355)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2785)
  • Public and Global Health (5591)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1094)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (635)
  • Respiratory Medicine (760)
  • Rheumatology (339)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (311)
  • Sports Medicine (289)
  • Surgery (343)
  • Toxicology (48)
  • Transplantation (159)
  • Urology (132)