Department of Laboratory Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore, Singapore.
J Med Virol. 2021 Jul;93(7):4603-4607. doi: 10.1002/jmv.26940. Epub 2021 Mar 30.
We compared the performance of five assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection on nasopharyngeal swab samples: Roche "cobas," Luminex "ARIES," MiRXES "Fortitude," Altona "RealStar," and Thermo Fisher Scientific "TaqPath." A total of 94 nasopharyngeal swab samples were obtained from 80 confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 cases in the first 2 weeks of illness (median, 7 days; range, 2-14 days) and 14 healthy controls. After collection, all samples were transported to the hospital clinical laboratory within 24 h. These samples were tested on all five assays within 3 days of sample receipt. Of the 94 samples, 69 yielded the same result on all platforms, resulting in an agreement of 73.4% (69 of 94). Of these, 14 were the healthy control swabs which all tested negative, demonstrating good specificity across all platforms. The ARIES assay had the lowest detection rate (68.8%), followed by Fortitude (85.0%), RealStar (86.3%), cobas (95.0%), and TaqPath (100%). Statistically significant differences were observed for ARIES, Fortitude, and RealStar when compared against the best performing TaqPath using McNemar's χ test. A consensus result was established based on the results obtained by the cobas, Fortitude, RealStar, and TaqPath. Six discrepancies had failed to reach a consensus and were adjudicated using the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2. Overall, the TaqPath and cobas assays were the most sensitive at detecting their designated SARS-CoV-2 gene targets. On the other hand, the ARIES assay was the least sensitive, thus warranting the need for assay re-optimization before go-live at the testing laboratory.
我们比较了五种用于检测鼻咽拭子样本中严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒 2(SARS-CoV-2)的检测方法的性能:罗氏 cobas、Luminex ARIES、MiRXES Fortitude、Altona RealStar 和 Thermo Fisher Scientific TaqPath。共从 80 例确诊的 2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)患者的前 2 周发病期(中位数为 7 天;范围为 2-14 天)和 14 例健康对照中获得了 94 份鼻咽拭子样本。采集后,所有样本均在 24 小时内运送到医院临床实验室。所有样本在收到样本后 3 天内都在所有五个平台上进行了检测。94 份样本中,有 69 份在所有平台上的结果均相同,总符合率为 73.4%(69/94)。其中,14 份为健康对照拭子,均为阴性,表明所有平台的特异性均良好。ARIES 检测的检出率最低(68.8%),其次是 Fortitude(85.0%)、RealStar(86.3%)、cobas(95.0%)和 TaqPath(100%)。采用 McNemar's χ2 检验比较 ARIES、Fortitude 和 RealStar 与表现最佳的 TaqPath 之间的差异,发现差异有统计学意义。基于 cobas、Fortitude、RealStar 和 TaqPath 的检测结果,建立了一致性结果。有 6 个差异未达成共识,使用 Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 进行裁决。总体而言,TaqPath 和 cobas 检测在检测其指定的 SARS-CoV-2 基因靶标方面最为敏感。另一方面,ARIES 检测的灵敏度最低,因此需要在检测实验室进行检测前重新优化。