Comparative Performance Evaluation of FilmArray BioFire RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Detection

IF 1.1 Q4 VIROLOGY Advances in Virology Pub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI:10.1155/2022/4510900
S. Tazi, H. Kabbaj, Jalila Zirar, Amal Zouaki, Ghizlane El Amin, Othman El Himeur, M. Seffar
{"title":"Comparative Performance Evaluation of FilmArray BioFire RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Detection","authors":"S. Tazi, H. Kabbaj, Jalila Zirar, Amal Zouaki, Ghizlane El Amin, Othman El Himeur, M. Seffar","doi":"10.1155/2022/4510900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background RT-PCR is the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis, but the lack of standardization of assays, whose diagnostic performance may widely vary, complicates the interpretation of the discrepancies that may be encountered. Study design. We conducted a retrospective study over a ten-month period at the Central Laboratory of Virology of Ibn Sina University Hospital of Rabat. We included nasopharyngeal swabs, positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2 on FilmArray BioFire® Respiratory Panel 2.1 Plus, which were subjected to our laboratory's reference test, MAScIR SARS-CoV-2 M kit 2.0, initially or after a freeze-thaw cycle. The results were compared, and each discrepant sample with sufficient volume underwent the third test, using ARGENE® SARS-CoV-2 R-GENE kit. Results Of 80 SARS-CoV-2 negative samples on FilmArray, there were no discordant results, whereas of 80 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples on FilmArray, 21 had discordant results on MAScIR, and only 11 could be tested on ARGENE, revealing positive results in 6 cases. 12.7% and 76.5% correspond to the discordance rates for MAScIR (with one or both targets detected on FilmArray), while 14.3% and 100% correspond to those of ARGENE. As the estimated sensitivity and specificity of FilmArray, compared with MAScIR, were 100% and 79.2%, respectively, its lower limit of detection, and ARGENE assay results, made it difficult to distinguish between false positives on FilmArray and false negatives on MAScIR without further investigations. Conclusion The implementation of a new assay in our laboratory revealed discrepancies suggesting a lack of sensitivity of our laboratory's reference test, leading us consequently to retain the SARS-CoV-2 positive result of these discordant samples on FilmArray, regardless of the detection of one or both targets. Our study, which is, to our knowledge, the first comparing FilmArray RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection, highlights the urgent need to standardize RT-PCR assays for COVID-19 diagnosis.","PeriodicalId":7473,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Virology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Virology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4510900","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"VIROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Background RT-PCR is the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis, but the lack of standardization of assays, whose diagnostic performance may widely vary, complicates the interpretation of the discrepancies that may be encountered. Study design. We conducted a retrospective study over a ten-month period at the Central Laboratory of Virology of Ibn Sina University Hospital of Rabat. We included nasopharyngeal swabs, positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2 on FilmArray BioFire® Respiratory Panel 2.1 Plus, which were subjected to our laboratory's reference test, MAScIR SARS-CoV-2 M kit 2.0, initially or after a freeze-thaw cycle. The results were compared, and each discrepant sample with sufficient volume underwent the third test, using ARGENE® SARS-CoV-2 R-GENE kit. Results Of 80 SARS-CoV-2 negative samples on FilmArray, there were no discordant results, whereas of 80 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples on FilmArray, 21 had discordant results on MAScIR, and only 11 could be tested on ARGENE, revealing positive results in 6 cases. 12.7% and 76.5% correspond to the discordance rates for MAScIR (with one or both targets detected on FilmArray), while 14.3% and 100% correspond to those of ARGENE. As the estimated sensitivity and specificity of FilmArray, compared with MAScIR, were 100% and 79.2%, respectively, its lower limit of detection, and ARGENE assay results, made it difficult to distinguish between false positives on FilmArray and false negatives on MAScIR without further investigations. Conclusion The implementation of a new assay in our laboratory revealed discrepancies suggesting a lack of sensitivity of our laboratory's reference test, leading us consequently to retain the SARS-CoV-2 positive result of these discordant samples on FilmArray, regardless of the detection of one or both targets. Our study, which is, to our knowledge, the first comparing FilmArray RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection, highlights the urgent need to standardize RT-PCR assays for COVID-19 diagnosis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
FilmArray BioFire RP2.1与MAScIR 2.0检测SARS-CoV-2的性能比较
背景RT-PCR是新冠肺炎诊断的金标准,但缺乏检测的标准化,其诊断性能可能有很大差异,这使对可能遇到的差异的解释变得复杂。研究设计。我们在拉巴特伊本西纳大学医院的中央病毒学实验室进行了为期十个月的回顾性研究。我们在FilmArray BioFire®Respiratory Panel 2.1 Plus上纳入了严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2阳性和阴性的鼻咽拭子,这些拭子在最初或冻融循环后接受了我们实验室的参考测试MAScIR严重急性呼吸系统冠状病毒2 M试剂盒2.0。对结果进行比较,并使用ARGENE®严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型R-GENE试剂盒对每个体积足够的差异样本进行第三次检测。结果在FilmArray上的80个严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型阴性样本中,没有不一致的结果,而在FilmAarray上的80份严重急性呼吸系冠状病毒2型阳性样本中,有21份在MAScIR上有不一致的结果,只有11份可以在ARGENE上检测,6例阳性。12.7%和76.5%对应于MAScIR(在FilmArray上检测到一个或两个目标)的不一致率,而14.3%和100%对应于ARGENE的不一致性。由于与MAScIR相比,FilmArray的估计灵敏度和特异性分别为100%和79.2%,其检测下限和ARGENE测定结果使得在没有进一步研究的情况下很难区分FilmArrays上的假阳性和MAScIR上的假阴性。结论在我们实验室实施的一种新的检测方法显示了差异,这表明我们实验室的参考检测缺乏敏感性,因此我们在FilmArray上保留了这些不一致样本的严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型阳性结果,无论检测到一个或两个靶点。据我们所知,我们的研究首次将FilmArray RP2.1和MAScIR 2.0检测方法用于SARS-CoV-2检测,这突出表明迫切需要标准化RT-PCR检测方法用于新冠肺炎诊断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
Increased Incidence of Rhinovirus Pneumonia in Children During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Mexico. Measles Outbreaks in the Republic of Congo: Epidemiology of Laboratory-Confirmed Cases Between 2019 and 2022. Support Vector Machine Outperforms Other Machine Learning Models in Early Diagnosis of Dengue Using Routine Clinical Data. In Silico Design of a Trans-Amplifying RNA-Based Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 Structural Proteins. Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) Genotypes in an Ecuadorian Population: A Preliminary Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1