Abstract
Real-time, reverse transcriptase PCR assays are a pervasive technology used for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These assays produce a cycle threshold value (Ct) corresponding to the first amplification cycle in which reliable amplification is detected. Such Ct values have been used by clinicians and in public health settings to guide treatment, monitor disease progression, assess prognosis, and inform isolation practices. To understanding the risk of reporting out uncalibrated Ct values and potential for instead reporting out calibrated viral load values, we performed a multi-institutional study to benchmark major clinical platforms against a calibrated standard. We found that for any given Ct value, corresponding viral loads varied up to 1000-fold among the different tests. In contrast, when these different assays were calibrated against a common standard and then used to test unknown de-identified specimens at several dilutions, viral load values showed high precision between methods (standard deviation and range of 0.36 and 1.1 log10 genome copies) and high accuracy compared with droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) determinations (difference between mean CDC N2 and Sarbeco E ddPCR determinations and mean determinations by calibrated RT-PCR assays examined in our study of 0.044 log10 genome copies). We, therefore, find strong support for calibration of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests to allow conversion of cycle thresholds to accurate and precise viral load values that are reproducible across major clinical systems. Implementation of calibrated assays will provide more reliable information for clinical decision making and allow more rigorous interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory data in clinical and laboratory investigation.
Competing Interest Statement
We thank LGC SeraCare (Gaithersburg, MD) for provision of SARS-CoV-2 AccuPlex calibration material and human specimens used in this study. J.E.K, A.C., E.D.A., E.G., and R.C. have received SARS-CoV-2 reagents from Abbott Molecular under a under COVID-19 Diagnostics Evaluation Agreements unrelated to this study. R.G., E.M., and C.H. are employees of LGC SeraCare. G.O. and A.S. are employees of Eli Lilly and Company and compensated with salary and stock. N.A.L. has received consulting honoraria from LGC. All other authors, no conflicts of interest. Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this paper in order to specify the experimental procedure adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology nor is it intended to imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
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:
De-identified specimens used in this study were obtained from Serologix (Doyletown, PA); Serologix procured these de-identified clinical specimens with ethical approval from the ADVARRA Internal Review Board (Columbia, MD, USA).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
