Konstantin Tanida, Lars Koste, Christian Koenig, Werner Wenzel, Andreas Fritsch, Hagen Frickmann
{"title":"将自动盒式 ARIES SARS-CoV-2 检测法(RUO)与自动 Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 PCR 作为金标准进行对比评估。","authors":"Konstantin Tanida, Lars Koste, Christian Koenig, Werner Wenzel, Andreas Fritsch, Hagen Frickmann","doi":"10.1556/1886.2020.00017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To evaluate the automated cartridge-based PCR approach ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay targeting the ORF-sequence and the N-gene of SARS-CoV-2.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In line with the suggestions by Rabenau and colleagues, the automated ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay was challenged with strongly positive samples, weakly positive samples and negative samples. Further, intra-assay and inter-assay precision as well as the limit-of-detection (lod) were defined with quantified target RNA and DNA. The Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-Cov-2 Assay was used as gold standard.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Concordance between the ARIES assay and the Cepheid assay was 100% for strongly positive samples and for negative samples, respectively. For weakly positive samples as confirmed applying the Cepheid assay, a relevant minority of 4 out of 15 samples (26.7%) went undetected by the ARIES assay. Intra- and inter-assay precision were satisfactory, while the lod was in the 103 DNA copies/reaction-range, in the 103 virus copies/reaction-range, or in the 103-104 free RNA copies/reaction-range in our hands.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The automated ARIES assay shows comparable test characteristics as the Cepheid assay focusing on strongly positive and negative samples but a slightly reduced sensitivity with weakly positive samples. Decisions on diagnostic use should include considerations on the lod.</p>","PeriodicalId":11929,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology","volume":"10 3","pages":"156-164"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3d/73/eujmi-10-156.PMC7592518.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the automated cartridge-based ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay (RUO) against automated Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 PCR as gold standard.\",\"authors\":\"Konstantin Tanida, Lars Koste, Christian Koenig, Werner Wenzel, Andreas Fritsch, Hagen Frickmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1556/1886.2020.00017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To evaluate the automated cartridge-based PCR approach ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay targeting the ORF-sequence and the N-gene of SARS-CoV-2.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In line with the suggestions by Rabenau and colleagues, the automated ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay was challenged with strongly positive samples, weakly positive samples and negative samples. Further, intra-assay and inter-assay precision as well as the limit-of-detection (lod) were defined with quantified target RNA and DNA. The Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-Cov-2 Assay was used as gold standard.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Concordance between the ARIES assay and the Cepheid assay was 100% for strongly positive samples and for negative samples, respectively. For weakly positive samples as confirmed applying the Cepheid assay, a relevant minority of 4 out of 15 samples (26.7%) went undetected by the ARIES assay. Intra- and inter-assay precision were satisfactory, while the lod was in the 103 DNA copies/reaction-range, in the 103 virus copies/reaction-range, or in the 103-104 free RNA copies/reaction-range in our hands.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The automated ARIES assay shows comparable test characteristics as the Cepheid assay focusing on strongly positive and negative samples but a slightly reduced sensitivity with weakly positive samples. Decisions on diagnostic use should include considerations on the lod.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology\",\"volume\":\"10 3\",\"pages\":\"156-164\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3d/73/eujmi-10-156.PMC7592518.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1556/1886.2020.00017\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1556/1886.2020.00017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of the automated cartridge-based ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay (RUO) against automated Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 PCR as gold standard.
Introduction: To evaluate the automated cartridge-based PCR approach ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay targeting the ORF-sequence and the N-gene of SARS-CoV-2.
Methods: In line with the suggestions by Rabenau and colleagues, the automated ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay was challenged with strongly positive samples, weakly positive samples and negative samples. Further, intra-assay and inter-assay precision as well as the limit-of-detection (lod) were defined with quantified target RNA and DNA. The Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-Cov-2 Assay was used as gold standard.
Results: Concordance between the ARIES assay and the Cepheid assay was 100% for strongly positive samples and for negative samples, respectively. For weakly positive samples as confirmed applying the Cepheid assay, a relevant minority of 4 out of 15 samples (26.7%) went undetected by the ARIES assay. Intra- and inter-assay precision were satisfactory, while the lod was in the 103 DNA copies/reaction-range, in the 103 virus copies/reaction-range, or in the 103-104 free RNA copies/reaction-range in our hands.
Conclusions: The automated ARIES assay shows comparable test characteristics as the Cepheid assay focusing on strongly positive and negative samples but a slightly reduced sensitivity with weakly positive samples. Decisions on diagnostic use should include considerations on the lod.