RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparison of two commercial molecular tests and a laboratory-developed modification of the CDC 2019-nCOV RT-PCR assay for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 from upper respiratory tract specimens
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.05.02.20088740
DO 10.1101/2020.05.02.20088740
A1 Nicholas M. Moore
A1 Haiying Li
A1 Debra Schejbal
A1 Jennifer Lindsley
A1 Mary K. Hayden
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/06/2020.05.02.20088740.abstract
AB We compared the ability of 2 commercial molecular amplification assays [RealTime SARS-CoV-2 on the m2000 (Abbott) and ID NOW™ COVID-19 (Abbott)] and a laboratory-developed test [modified CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay with RNA extraction by eMag® (bioMérieux) and amplification on QuantStudio™ 6 or ABI 7500 Real-Time PCR System (Life Technologies)] to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in upper respiratory tract specimens. Discrepant results were adjudicated by medical record review. 200 nasopharyngeal swab specimens in viral transport medium (VTM) were collected from symptomatic patients between March 27 and April 9, 2020. Results were concordant for 167 specimens (83.5% overall agreement), including 94 positive and 73 negative specimens. The RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay on the m2000 yielded 33 additional positive results, 25 of which were also positive by the modified CDC assay but not by the ID NOW™ COVID-19 assay. In a follow-up evaluation, 97 patients for whom a dry nasal swab specimen yielded negative results by the ID NOW™ COVID-19 assay had a paired nasopharyngeal swab specimen collected in VTM and tested by the RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay; SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 13 (13.4%) of these specimens. Medical record review deemed all discrepant results to be true positives. The ID NOW™ COVID-19 test was the easiest to perform and provided a result in the shortest time: as soon as 5 minutes for positive and 13 minutes for negative result. The RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay on the m2000 detected more cases of COVID-19 infection than the modified CDC assay or the ID NOW™ COVID-19 test.Competing Interest StatementOur institution received IgG antibody test kits from Abbott Diagnostics for evaluation purposes. These test kits were not used or evaluated in this study.Funding StatementThere are no external funding sources for this study. No authors received payment or services from any third party.Author 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.YesAnonymized data is available upon reasonable request.