Y. Katayama, Ryosei Murai, Yuki Sato, M. Moriai, Shinya Nirasawa, Masachika Saeki, Yuki Yakuwa, Y. Fujiya, K. Kuronuma, Satoshi Takahashi
{"title":"Analytical performance of four rapid molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2","authors":"Y. Katayama, Ryosei Murai, Yuki Sato, M. Moriai, Shinya Nirasawa, Masachika Saeki, Yuki Yakuwa, Y. Fujiya, K. Kuronuma, Satoshi Takahashi","doi":"10.1515/labmed-2022-0073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives Various reagents and equipment for testing SARS-CoV-2 infections have been developed, particularly rapid molecular tests based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Methods We evaluated the analytical performance of four rapid molecular tests for SARS-CoV-2. We used 56 nasopharyngeal swabs from patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection; 36 diagnosed as positive by the Ampdirect™ 2019-nCoV Detection Kit (Shimadzu assay) were considered as true-positive samples. Results The sensitivity of Cobas® Liat SARS-CoV-2 and Flu A/B (Cobas) was the highest among the four molecular test kits. The limit of detection was 1.49 × 10−2 copies/µL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46×10−2−1.51 × 10−2 copies/µL) for Cobas; 1.43 × 10−1 copies/µL (95% CI: 8.01×10−3−2.78 × 10−1 copies/µL) for Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test (Xpert); 2.00 × 10−1 copies/µL (95% CI: 1.95×10−1-2.05 × 10−1 copies/µL) for FilmArray Respiratory Panel v2.1 (FilmArray); and 3.33 × 10 copies/µL (95% CI: 1.93 × 10–4.72×10 copies/µL) for Smart Gene® SARS-CoV-2 (Smart gene). Cobas also had a high sensitivity (100%) compared with Shimadzu assay. The sensitivities of Xpert, FilmArray, and Smart Gene were 97.2%, 97.2%, and 75.0%, respectively. The specificity of all tests was 100%. Conclusions In conclusion, the four rapid SARS-CoV-2 molecular test kits have high specificity and sensitivity for detecting SARS-CoV-2. As they are easy to use, they could be a useful method for detecting SARS-CoV-2.","PeriodicalId":55986,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Laboratory Medicine","volume":"46 1","pages":"411 - 415"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/labmed-2022-0073","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Various reagents and equipment for testing SARS-CoV-2 infections have been developed, particularly rapid molecular tests based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Methods We evaluated the analytical performance of four rapid molecular tests for SARS-CoV-2. We used 56 nasopharyngeal swabs from patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection; 36 diagnosed as positive by the Ampdirect™ 2019-nCoV Detection Kit (Shimadzu assay) were considered as true-positive samples. Results The sensitivity of Cobas® Liat SARS-CoV-2 and Flu A/B (Cobas) was the highest among the four molecular test kits. The limit of detection was 1.49 × 10−2 copies/µL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46×10−2−1.51 × 10−2 copies/µL) for Cobas; 1.43 × 10−1 copies/µL (95% CI: 8.01×10−3−2.78 × 10−1 copies/µL) for Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test (Xpert); 2.00 × 10−1 copies/µL (95% CI: 1.95×10−1-2.05 × 10−1 copies/µL) for FilmArray Respiratory Panel v2.1 (FilmArray); and 3.33 × 10 copies/µL (95% CI: 1.93 × 10–4.72×10 copies/µL) for Smart Gene® SARS-CoV-2 (Smart gene). Cobas also had a high sensitivity (100%) compared with Shimadzu assay. The sensitivities of Xpert, FilmArray, and Smart Gene were 97.2%, 97.2%, and 75.0%, respectively. The specificity of all tests was 100%. Conclusions In conclusion, the four rapid SARS-CoV-2 molecular test kits have high specificity and sensitivity for detecting SARS-CoV-2. As they are easy to use, they could be a useful method for detecting SARS-CoV-2.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Laboratory Medicine (JLM) is a bi-monthly published journal that reports on the latest developments in laboratory medicine. Particular focus is placed on the diagnostic aspects of the clinical laboratory, although technical, regulatory, and educational topics are equally covered. The Journal specializes in the publication of high-standard, competent and timely review articles on clinical, methodological and pathogenic aspects of modern laboratory diagnostics. These reviews are critically reviewed by expert reviewers and JLM’s Associate Editors who are specialists in the various subdisciplines of laboratory medicine. In addition, JLM publishes original research articles, case reports, point/counterpoint articles and letters to the editor, all of which are peer reviewed by at least two experts in the field.