Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Comparison of Commercially Available and Laboratory-Developed Assays for In Vitro Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Laboratories

2020; American Society for Microbiology; Volume: 58; Issue: 8 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1128/jcm.00821-20

1098-660X

Joshua A. Lieberman, Gregory Pepper, Samia N. Naccache, Meei‐Li Huang, Keith R. Jerome, Alexander L. Greninger,

SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research

Multiple laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) and commercially available assays have emerged to meet diagnostic needs related to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. To date, there is limited comparison data for these different testing platforms. We compared the analytical performance of a LDT developed in our clinical laboratory based on CDC primer sets and four commercially available, FDA emergency use authorized assays for SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid, DiaSorin, Hologic Panther, and Roche Cobas) on a total of 169 nasopharyngeal swabs. The LDT and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assays were the most sensitive assays for SARS-CoV-2 with 100% agreement across specimens. The Hologic Panther Fusion, DiaSorin Simplexa, and Roche Cobas 6800 failed to detect positive specimens only near the limit of detection of our CDC-based LDT assay. All assays were 100% specific, using our CDC-based LDT as the gold standard. Our results provide initial test performance characteristics for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) and highlight the importance of having multiple viral detection testing platforms available in a public health emergency.