RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 SARS-CoV-2 sample-to-answer nucleic acid testing in a tertiary care emergency department: evaluation and utility
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.07.03.20145383
DO 10.1101/2020.07.03.20145383
A1 Jokela, Pia
A1 Jääskeläinen, Anu E
A1 Jarva, Hanna
A1 Holma, Tanja
A1 Ahava, Maarit J
A1 Mannonen, Laura
A1 Lappalainen, Maija
A1 Kurkela, Satu
A1 Loginov, Raisa
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/08/2020.07.03.20145383.abstract
AB Rapid sample-to-answer tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 are emerging and data on their relative performance is urgently needed. We evaluated the analytical performance of two rapid nucleic acid tests, Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and Mobidiag Novodiag® Covid-19, in comparison to a combination reference of three large-scale PCR tests. Moreover, utility of the Novodiag® test in tertiary care emergency departments was assessed. In the preliminary evaluation, analysis of 90 respiratory samples resulted in 100% specificity and sensitivity for Xpert®, whereas analysis of 107 samples resulted in 93.4% sensitivity and 100% specificity for Novodiag®. Rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing with Novodiag® was made available for four tertiary care emergency departments in Helsinki, Finland between 18 and 31 May, coinciding with a rapidly declining epidemic phase. Altogether 361 respiratory specimens, together with relevant clinical data, were analyzed with Novodiag® and reference tests: 355/361 of the specimens were negative with both methods, and 1/361 was positive in Novodiag® and negative by the reference method. Of the 5 remaining specimens, two were negative with Novodiag®, but positive with the reference method with late Ct values. On average, a test result using Novodiag® was available nearly 8 hours earlier than that obtained with the large-scale PCR tests. While the performance of novel sample-to-answer PCR tests need to be carefully evaluated, they may provide timely and reliable results in detection of SARS-CoV-2 and thus facilitate patient management including effective cohorting.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNot applicableAuthor 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:Permit HUS/157/2020 (Helsinki University Hosptal, Finland)All 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).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.YesData is either included in the manuscript or if missing, available upon request.