PloS one · 2021
Comparative performance and cycle threshold values of 10 nucleic acid amplification tests for SARS-CoV-2 on clinical samples.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mizoguchi Miyuki, Harada Sohei, Okamoto Koh, Higurashi Yoshimi, Ikeda Mahoko, Moriya Kyoji
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A number of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for SARS-CoV-2 with different reagents have been approved for clinical use in Japan. These include research kits approved under emergency use authorization through simplified process to stabilize the supply of the reagents. Although these research kits have been increasingly used in clinical practice, limited data is available for the diagnostic performance in clinical settings.
METHODS: We compared sensitivity, specificity, and cycle threshold (Ct) values obtained by NAATs using 10 kits approved in Japan including eight kits those receiving emergency use authorization using 69 frozen-stored clinical samples including 23 positive samples with various Ct values and 46 negative samples.
RESULTS: Viral copy number of the frozen-stored samples determined with LightMix E-gene test ranged from 0.6 to 84521.1 copies/μL. While no false-positive results were obtained by any of these tests (specificity: 100% [95% CI, 88.9%-100%]), sensitivity of the nine tests ranged from 68.2% [95% CI, 45.1%-86.1%] to 95.5% [95% CI, 77.2%-99.9%] using LightMix E-gene test as the gold standard. All tests showed positive results for all samples with ≥100 copies/μL. Significant difference of Ct values even among tests amplifying the same genetic region (N1-CDC, N2) was also observed.
CONCLUSION: Difference in the diagnostic performance was observed among NAATs approved in Japan. Regarding diagnostic kits for emerging infectious diseases, a system is needed to ensure both rapidity of reagent supply and accuracy of diagnosis. Ct values, which are sometimes regarded as a marker of infectivity, are not interchangeable when obtained by different assays.
METHODS: We compared sensitivity, specificity, and cycle threshold (Ct) values obtained by NAATs using 10 kits approved in Japan including eight kits those receiving emergency use authorization using 69 frozen-stored clinical samples including 23 positive samples with various Ct values and 46 negative samples.
RESULTS: Viral copy number of the frozen-stored samples determined with LightMix E-gene test ranged from 0.6 to 84521.1 copies/μL. While no false-positive results were obtained by any of these tests (specificity: 100% [95% CI, 88.9%-100%]), sensitivity of the nine tests ranged from 68.2% [95% CI, 45.1%-86.1%] to 95.5% [95% CI, 77.2%-99.9%] using LightMix E-gene test as the gold standard. All tests showed positive results for all samples with ≥100 copies/μL. Significant difference of Ct values even among tests amplifying the same genetic region (N1-CDC, N2) was also observed.
CONCLUSION: Difference in the diagnostic performance was observed among NAATs approved in Japan. Regarding diagnostic kits for emerging infectious diseases, a system is needed to ensure both rapidity of reagent supply and accuracy of diagnosis. Ct values, which are sometimes regarded as a marker of infectivity, are not interchangeable when obtained by different assays.