Rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia on lower respiratory tract specimens.
Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL)
Bronchoaspirates (BAS)
Rapid PCR
SARS-CoV-2
Journal
BMC infectious diseases
ISSN: 1471-2334
Titre abrégé: BMC Infect Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968551
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Sep 2021
08 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
16
06
2021
accepted:
19
08
2021
entrez:
8
9
2021
pubmed:
9
9
2021
medline:
25
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic requires the availability of accurate and rapid diagnostic tests, especially in such clinical settings as emergency and intensive care units. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 rapid PCR kit in lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens. Consecutive LRT specimens (bronchoalveolar lavage and bronchoaspirates) were collected from Intensive Care Units of San Martino Hospital (Genoa, Italy) between November 2020 and January 2021. All samples underwent RT-PCR testing by means of the Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 assay (Seegene Inc., South Korea). On the basis of RT-PCR results, specimens were categorized as negative, positive with high viral load [cycle threshold (Ct) ≤ 30] and positive with low viral load (Ct of 31-35). A 1:1:1 ratio was used to achieve a sample size of 75. All specimens were subsequently tested by means of the Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 rapid PCR assay (Bosch Healthcare Solutions GmbH, Germany). The diagnostic performance of this assay was assessed against RT-PCR through the calculation of accuracy, Cohen's κ, sensitivity, specificity and expected positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values. The overall diagnostic accuracy of the Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 was 97.3% (95% CI: 90.9-99.3%), with an excellent Cohen's κ of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.72-1). Sensitivity and specificity were 96% (95% CI: 86.5-98.9%) and 100% (95% CI: 86.7-100%), respectively. In samples with high viral loads, sensitivity was 100% (Table 1). The distributions of E gene Ct values were similar (Wilcoxon's test: p = 0.070), with medians of 35 (IQR: 25-36) and 35 (IQR: 25-35) on Vivalytic and RT-PCR, respectively (Fig. 1). NPV and PPV was 92.6% and 100%, respectively. Table 1 Demographic characteristics and data sample type of the study cases (N = 75) Male, N (%) 56 (74.6%) Age (yr), Median (IQR) 65 (31-81) BAS, N (%) 43 (57.3%) Negative 30.2% Positive-High viral load [Ct ≤ 30] 27.9% Positive-Low viral load [Ct 31-35] 41.9% BAL, N (%) 32 (42.7%) Negative 37.5% Positive-High viral load [Ct ≤ 30] 40.6% Positive-Low viral load [Ct 31-35] 21.9% Data were expressed as proportions for categorical variables. Specimens were categorized into negative, positive with high viral load [cycle threshold (Ct) ≤ 30] and positive with low viral load (Ct of 31-35). BAS bronchoaspirates, BAL bronchoalveolar lavage, Ct cycle threshold Fig. 1 Distribution of E gene cycle threshold values of the rapid PCR and RT-PCR CONCLUSIONS: Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 can be used effectively on LRT specimens following sample liquefaction. It is a feasible and highly accurate molecular procedure, especially in samples with high viral loads. This assay yields results in about 40 min, and may therefore accelerate clinical decision-making in urgent/emergency situations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic requires the availability of accurate and rapid diagnostic tests, especially in such clinical settings as emergency and intensive care units. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 rapid PCR kit in lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens.
METHODS
METHODS
Consecutive LRT specimens (bronchoalveolar lavage and bronchoaspirates) were collected from Intensive Care Units of San Martino Hospital (Genoa, Italy) between November 2020 and January 2021. All samples underwent RT-PCR testing by means of the Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 assay (Seegene Inc., South Korea). On the basis of RT-PCR results, specimens were categorized as negative, positive with high viral load [cycle threshold (Ct) ≤ 30] and positive with low viral load (Ct of 31-35). A 1:1:1 ratio was used to achieve a sample size of 75. All specimens were subsequently tested by means of the Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 rapid PCR assay (Bosch Healthcare Solutions GmbH, Germany). The diagnostic performance of this assay was assessed against RT-PCR through the calculation of accuracy, Cohen's κ, sensitivity, specificity and expected positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The overall diagnostic accuracy of the Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 was 97.3% (95% CI: 90.9-99.3%), with an excellent Cohen's κ of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.72-1). Sensitivity and specificity were 96% (95% CI: 86.5-98.9%) and 100% (95% CI: 86.7-100%), respectively. In samples with high viral loads, sensitivity was 100% (Table 1). The distributions of E gene Ct values were similar (Wilcoxon's test: p = 0.070), with medians of 35 (IQR: 25-36) and 35 (IQR: 25-35) on Vivalytic and RT-PCR, respectively (Fig. 1). NPV and PPV was 92.6% and 100%, respectively. Table 1 Demographic characteristics and data sample type of the study cases (N = 75) Male, N (%) 56 (74.6%) Age (yr), Median (IQR) 65 (31-81) BAS, N (%) 43 (57.3%) Negative 30.2% Positive-High viral load [Ct ≤ 30] 27.9% Positive-Low viral load [Ct 31-35] 41.9% BAL, N (%) 32 (42.7%) Negative 37.5% Positive-High viral load [Ct ≤ 30] 40.6% Positive-Low viral load [Ct 31-35] 21.9% Data were expressed as proportions for categorical variables. Specimens were categorized into negative, positive with high viral load [cycle threshold (Ct) ≤ 30] and positive with low viral load (Ct of 31-35). BAS bronchoaspirates, BAL bronchoalveolar lavage, Ct cycle threshold Fig. 1 Distribution of E gene cycle threshold values of the rapid PCR and RT-PCR CONCLUSIONS: Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 can be used effectively on LRT specimens following sample liquefaction. It is a feasible and highly accurate molecular procedure, especially in samples with high viral loads. This assay yields results in about 40 min, and may therefore accelerate clinical decision-making in urgent/emergency situations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34493222
doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06591-w
pii: 10.1186/s12879-021-06591-w
pmc: PMC8423595
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
926Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Goh KJ, Wong J, Tien JC, Ng SY, Duu Wen S, Phua GC, et al. Preparing your intensive care unit for the COVID-19 pandemic: practical considerations and strategies. Crit Care. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-02916-4 .
doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02916-4
pubmed: 32393325
pmcid: 7213774
Grasselli G, Pesenti A, Cecconi M. Critical care utilization for the COVID-19 outbreak in Lombardy, Italy: early experience and forecast during an emergency response. JAMA. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.4031 .
doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4031
pubmed: 32250385
pmcid: 7136855
Zheng Z, Yao Z, Wu K, Zheng J. The diagnosis of SARS-CoV2 pneumonia: a review of laboratory and radiological testing results. J Med Virol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.26081 .
doi: 10.1002/jmv.26081
pubmed: 33091154
pmcid: 7675516
Centre of Disease Control and Prevention (Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)—guideline for clinical specimen 2020). https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/guidelines-clinical-specimens.html . Accessed 16 Apr 2020.
Zou L, Ruan F, Huang M, Liang L, Huang H, Hong Z, et al. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2001737 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2001737
pubmed: 32997907
pmcid: 7182016
Middleton P, Perez-Guzman PN, Cheng A, Kumar N, Kont MD, Daunt A, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of clinically diagnosed RT-PCR swab negative COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study. Sci Rep. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81930-0 .
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-81930-0
pubmed: 34413325
pmcid: 8376878
Hase R, Kurita T, Muranaka E, Sasazawa H, Mito H, Yano Y. A case of imported COVID-19 diagnosed by PCR-positive lower respiratory specimen but with PCR-negative throat swabs. Infect Dis (Lond). 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744235.2020.1744711 .
doi: 10.1080/23744235.2020.1744711
Wölfel R, Corman VM, Guggemos W, Seilmaier M, Zange S, Müller MA, et al. Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019. Nature. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2196-x .
doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2196-x
pubmed: 33303961
Purkayastha S, Xiao Y, Jiao Z, Thepumnoeysuk R, Halsey K, Wu J, et al. Machine learning-based prediction of COVID-19 severity and progression to critical illness using CT imaging and clinical data. Korean J Radiol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2020.1104 .
doi: 10.3348/kjr.2020.1104
pubmed: 33739635
pmcid: 8236359
Kohmer N, Rabenau HF, Hoehl S, Kortenbusch M, Ciesek S, Berger A. Comparative analysis of point-of-care, high-throughput and laboratory-developed SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests (NATs). J Virol Methods. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114102 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114102
pubmed: 33607117
pmcid: 7885623
Palmieri L, Vanacore N, Donfrancesco C, Lo Noce C, Canevelli M, Punzo O, et al. Clinical characteristics of hospitalized individuals dying with COVID-19 by age group in Italy. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glaa146 .
doi: 10.1093/gerona/glaa146
pubmed: 32506122
Wang D, Li R, Wang J, Jiang Q, Gao C, Yang J, et al. Correlation analysis between disease severity and clinical and biochemical characteristics of 143 cases of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. BMC Infect Dis. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-020-05242-w .
doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-05242-w
pubmed: 33349241
pmcid: 7751113
Yang Y, Yang M, Yuan J, Wang F, Wang Z, Li J, et al. Laboratory diagnosis and monitoring the viral shedding of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Innovation (N Y). 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xinn.2020.100061 .
doi: 10.1016/j.xinn.2020.100061
Wang D, Hu B, Hu C, Zhu F, Liu X, Zhang J, et al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in Wuhan China. JAMA. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.1585 .
doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1585
pubmed: 33201198
pmcid: 7737131
Williams TGS, Snell LB, Taj U, Douthwaite ST. The role of lower respiratory tract samples in the diagnosis of COVID-19. Infect Dis (Lond). 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744235.2020.1761999 .
doi: 10.1080/23744235.2020.1761999
Kaul DR, Valesano AL, Petrie JG, Sagana R, Lyu D, Lin J, et al. Donor to recipient transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by lung transplantation despite negative donor upper respiratory tract testing. Am J Transplant. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.16532) .
doi: 10.1111/ajt.16532)
pubmed: 34241964
pmcid: 8014875
Perchetti GA, Nalla AK, Huang ML, Zhu H, Wei Y, Stensland L, et al. Validation of SARS-CoV-2 detection across multiple specimen types. J Clin Virol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104438 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104438
pubmed: 32805524
pmcid: 7396208
Mathuria JP, Yadav R. Laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2—a review of current methods. J Infect Public Health. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2020.06.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2020.06.005
pubmed: 32534946
pmcid: 7275982