RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparison of two commercial platforms and a laboratory developed test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.07.03.20144758
DO 10.1101/2020.07.03.20144758
A1 Laura Mannonen
A1 Hannimari Kallio-Kokko
A1 Raisa Loginov
A1 Anu Jääskeläinen
A1 Pia Jokela
A1 Jenni Antikainen
A1 Paula Väre
A1 Eliisa Kekäläinen
A1 Satu Kurkela
A1 Hanna Jarva
A1 Maija Lappalainen
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/06/2020.07.03.20144758.abstract
AB Mitigation of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic requires reliable and accessible laboratory diagnostic services. We evaluated the performance of one LDT and two commercial tests, cobas® SARS-CoV-2 (Roche) and Amplidiag® COVID-19 (Mobidiag), for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in respiratory specimens. 183 specimens collected from suspected COVID-19 patients were studied with all three methods to compare their performance. In relation to the reference standard, which was established as the result obtained by two of the three studied methods, the positive percent agreement (PPA) was highest for cobas® test (100%), followed by Amplidiag® test and the LDT (98.9%). The negative percent agreement (NPA) was lowest for cobas® test (89.4%), followed by Amplidiag® test (98.8%) and the highest value was obtained for LDT (100%). The dilution series conducted for specimens, however, suggests significantly higher sensitivity for the cobas® assay in comparison with the other two assays and the low NPA value may be due to the same reason. In general, all tested assays performed adequately. Both the time from sample to result and hands-on time per sample were shortest for cobas® test. Clinical laboratories need to be prepared for uninterrupted high-throughput testing during the coming months in mitigation of the pandemic. To secure that, it is of critical importance for clinical laboratories to maintain several simultaneous platforms in their SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementFunded by Helsinki University Hospital, HUSLAB, Helsinki, Finland.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Approved by IRB, decision number: HUS/157/2020, Helsinki University Hospital, FinlandAll 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.YesAll data referred to in the manuscript is available