{"title":"Analytical and clinical performances of seven direct detection assays for SARS-CoV-2","authors":"Yasufumi Matsumura , Wataru Yamazaki , Taro Noguchi , Masaki Yamamoto , Miki Nagao","doi":"10.1016/j.jcvp.2023.100138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Direct detection tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that bypass complicated nucleic acid/antigen purification steps are promising tools for the rapid diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>To determine the analytical and clinical diagnostic performances of the direct detection assays, we compared 6 direct molecular detection assays, including two loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays and one lateral flow antigen assay, against the reference extraction-based RT-PCR assay using 183 respiratory samples (87 nasopharyngeal swabs, 51 saliva samples, and 45 sputum samples).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Analytical sensitivity analysis showed that the direct RT-PCR assay of Toyobo exhibited the lowest LOD of 1,000 copies/mL. Compared with the 80 positive and 103 negative samples based on the reference assay, the Toyobo assay had the highest positive percent agreement (PPA) of 96.3%, followed by the two direct RT-PCR assays of Takara and Shimadzu and one LAMP assay of Eiken (86.3–87.5%). The Fujirebio antigen assay had the lowest PPA of 44.7% among the assays tested. The negative percent agreement of these direct detection assays was 100%, except for the Eiken assay (96.3%).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Large differences in PPA existed among the direct detection tests. Laboratories need to take these characteristics into consideration before implementing these assays.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73673,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical virology plus","volume":"3 1","pages":"Article 100138"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9837381/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical virology plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667038023000054","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Background
Direct detection tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that bypass complicated nucleic acid/antigen purification steps are promising tools for the rapid diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Methods
To determine the analytical and clinical diagnostic performances of the direct detection assays, we compared 6 direct molecular detection assays, including two loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays and one lateral flow antigen assay, against the reference extraction-based RT-PCR assay using 183 respiratory samples (87 nasopharyngeal swabs, 51 saliva samples, and 45 sputum samples).
Results
Analytical sensitivity analysis showed that the direct RT-PCR assay of Toyobo exhibited the lowest LOD of 1,000 copies/mL. Compared with the 80 positive and 103 negative samples based on the reference assay, the Toyobo assay had the highest positive percent agreement (PPA) of 96.3%, followed by the two direct RT-PCR assays of Takara and Shimadzu and one LAMP assay of Eiken (86.3–87.5%). The Fujirebio antigen assay had the lowest PPA of 44.7% among the assays tested. The negative percent agreement of these direct detection assays was 100%, except for the Eiken assay (96.3%).
Conclusions
Large differences in PPA existed among the direct detection tests. Laboratories need to take these characteristics into consideration before implementing these assays.