Multisite Clinical Validation of Isothermal Amplification-Based SARS-CoV-2 Detection Assays Using Different Sampling Strategies.
COVID-19
/ diagnosis
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing
/ methods
Humans
Limit of Detection
Mass Screening
Molecular Diagnostic Techniques
/ methods
Nasopharynx
/ virology
Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques
/ methods
Point-of-Care Systems
RNA, Viral
/ analysis
Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
/ methods
SARS-CoV-2
/ genetics
Specimen Handling
Viral Load
COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
cancer screening
clinical validation
isothermal amplification
Journal
Microbiology spectrum
ISSN: 2165-0497
Titre abrégé: Microbiol Spectr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101634614
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 10 2021
31 10 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
21
10
2021
medline:
17
11
2021
entrez:
20
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Isothermal amplification-based tests have been introduced as rapid, low-cost, and simple alternatives to real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection. The clinical performance of two isothermal amplification-based tests (Atila Biosystems iAMP coronavirus disease of 2019 [COVID-19] detection test and OptiGene COVID-19 direct plus RT-loop-mediated isothermal amplification [LAMP] test) was compared with that of clinical RT-PCR assays using different sampling strategies. A total of 1,378 participants were tested across 4 study sites. Compared with standard of care RT-PCR testing, the overall sensitivity and specificity of the Atila iAMP test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 were 76.2% and 94.9%, respectively, and increased to 88.8% and 89.5%, respectively, after exclusion of an outlier study site. Sensitivity varied based on the anatomic site from which the sample was collected. Sensitivity for nasopharyngeal sampling was 65.4% (range across study sites, 52.8% to 79.8%), for midturbinate was 88.2%, for saliva was 55.1% (range across study sites, 42.9% to 77.8%), and for anterior nares was 66.7% (range across study sites, 63.6% to 76.5%). The specificity for these anatomic collection sites ranged from 96.7% to 100%. Sensitivity improved in symptomatic patients (overall, 82.7%) and those with a higher viral load (overall, 92.4% for cycle threshold [
Identifiants
pubmed: 34668736
doi: 10.1128/Spectrum.00846-21
pmc: PMC8528118
doi:
Substances chimiques
RNA, Viral
0
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, N.I.H., Intramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0084621Commentaires et corrections
Type : UpdateOf
Références
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 24;3:CD013705
pubmed: 33760236
BMJ. 2020 Nov 6;371:m4323
pubmed: 33158908
J Infect. 2021 Feb;82(2):282-327
pubmed: 33573778
Nature. 2020 May;581(7809):465-469
pubmed: 32235945
J Med Virol. 2021 Sep;93(9):5538-5543
pubmed: 34002401
BMJ. 2021 Feb 3;372:n208
pubmed: 33536228
J Clin Med. 2021 Jan 13;10(2):
pubmed: 33450853
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Dec 15;173(12):JC69
pubmed: 33316181
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 03;:
pubmed: 33270107
Ann Intern Med. 2021 May;174(5):JC56
pubmed: 33939481
J Infect. 2021 Feb;82(2):282-327
pubmed: 33573779
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Jul 23;58(8):
pubmed: 32381642
BMC Infect Dis. 2021 Jun 30;21(1):623
pubmed: 34193072
JMIR Cancer. 2020 Oct 29;6(2):e21697
pubmed: 33027039
BMJ. 2020 Oct 23;371:m3862
pubmed: 33097561
J Clin Virol. 2020 Aug;129:104427
pubmed: 32535398