Pathogens and disease · 2020
Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR on a high-throughput molecular diagnostic platform and the cobas SARS-CoV-2 test for the diagnostic of COVID-19 on various clinical samples.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Opota Onya, Brouillet René, Greub Gilbert, Jaton Katia
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: In order to cope with the rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, we introduced on our in-house high-throughput molecular diagnostic platform (MDx Platform) a real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) to detect the SARS-CoV-2 from any clinical specimens. The aim of this study was to compare the RT-PCR results obtain with the MDx Platform and the commercial assay cobas SARS-CoV-2 (Roche) on nasopharyngeal swab and other clinical specimens including sputum, bronchial aspirate, bronchoalveolar lavage and anal swabs.
METHODS: Samples received in our laboratory from patients suspected of COVID-19 (n = 262) were tested in parallel with our MDx platform SARS-CoV-2 PCR and with the cobas SARS-CoV-2 test.
RESULTS: The overall agreement between the two tests for all samples tested was 99.24% (260/262), which corresponded to agreements of 100% (178/178) on nasopharyngeal swabs, 95.45% (42/44) on lower respiratory tract specimen with discordant resultS obtained for very high cycle threshold (Ct) value and 100% (40/40) on anorectal swabs. The Ct values for nasopharyngeal swabs displayed an excellent correlation (R2 > 96%) between both tests.
CONCLUSIONS: The high agreements between the cobas SARS-CoV-2 test and the MDx platform supports the use of both methods for the diagnostic of COVID-19 on various clinical samples. Very few discrepant results may occur at very low viral load.
METHODS: Samples received in our laboratory from patients suspected of COVID-19 (n = 262) were tested in parallel with our MDx platform SARS-CoV-2 PCR and with the cobas SARS-CoV-2 test.
RESULTS: The overall agreement between the two tests for all samples tested was 99.24% (260/262), which corresponded to agreements of 100% (178/178) on nasopharyngeal swabs, 95.45% (42/44) on lower respiratory tract specimen with discordant resultS obtained for very high cycle threshold (Ct) value and 100% (40/40) on anorectal swabs. The Ct values for nasopharyngeal swabs displayed an excellent correlation (R2 > 96%) between both tests.
CONCLUSIONS: The high agreements between the cobas SARS-CoV-2 test and the MDx platform supports the use of both methods for the diagnostic of COVID-19 on various clinical samples. Very few discrepant results may occur at very low viral load.