PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Joshua A. Lieberman AU - Gregory Pepper AU - Samia N. Naccache AU - Meei-Li Huang AU - Keith R. Jerome AU - Alexander L. Greninger TI - Comparison of Commercially Available and Laboratory Developed Assays for <em>in vitro</em> Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Laboratories AID - 10.1101/2020.04.24.20074559 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.04.24.20074559 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/27/2020.04.24.20074559.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/27/2020.04.24.20074559.full AB - Multiple laboratory developed tests and commercially available assays have emerged to meet diagnostic needs related to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. To date, there is limited comparison data for these different testing platforms. We compared the analytical performance of a laboratory developed test (LDT) developed in our clinical laboratory based on CDC primer sets and four commercially available, FDA emergency use authorized assays for SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid, DiaSorin, Hologic Panther, and Roche Cobas) on a total of 169 nasopharyngeal swabs. The LDT and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assays were the most sensitive assays for SARS-CoV-2 with 100% agreement across specimens. The Hologic Panther Fusion, DiaSorin Simplexa, and Roche Cobas 6800 only failed to detect positive specimens near the limit of detection of our CDC-based LDT assay. All assays were 100% specific, using our CDC-based LDT as the gold standard. Our results provide initial test performance characteristics for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and highlight the importance of having multiple viral detection testing platforms available in a public health emergency.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementFunded by Department of Laboratory of MedicineAuthor DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as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).YesI 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.YesAvailable in paper