Diagnosis with Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing (mNGS) technology and real-time PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron detection using various nasopharyngeal swabs in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron.

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, with the main subtypes BA.5.2 and BF.7 in China, led to off-target effects on the S and N genes from December 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023. The kits used for studying and developing these agents were not adequately and independently evaluated. It is important to verify the performance of commercial Real-Time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) tests.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a clinical evaluation of two Real Time SARS-CoV-2 Omicron assays to verify their performance using various detection reagents and clinical specimens.

METHODS

We performed clinical evaluations of two existing Chinese SARS-CoV-2 Omicron RT-qPCR kits 2019-nCoV nucleic acid diagnostic kits (Fosun Biotechnology, National instrument registration 20203400299, Shanghai, China) and COVID-19 nucleic acid detection kits (eDiagnosis Biomedicine, National instrument registration 20203400212, Wuhan, China) and using BSD (Bondson) (Guangzhou Bondson Biotechnology Co. Ltd, batch number 2022101), quality controls provided by the inspection center and a large number of clinically confirmed specimens.

RESULTS

The concordance rates for the Fosun and eDiagnosis kits were 95% and 100%, respectively. The detection limit for the Fosun and eDiagnosis kits was verified to be 300 copies/mL and 500 copies/mL. The Fosun assay exhibited the largest coefficient of variation (CV) for ORF1ab and N gene at the detection limit concentration (4.80%, 3.49%), whereas eDiagnosis showed a smaller CV (0.93%, 1.10%). In the reference product from the Hangzhou Clinical Laboratory Center test, it was found that Fosun had the lowest sensitivity of 93.47% and a specificity of 100%, while eDiagnosis exhibited 100% for both sensitivity and specificity. The lowest single target gene detection rate of Fosun reagents was 68.7% for the ORF1ab gene and 87.5% for the N gene, while eDiagnosis detection rate was 100%. Among the clinical group S specimens, the missed detection rate of the Fosun reagent was 10.9%, which was higher than the 3.9% of eDiagnosis. However, there was no significant difference in the clinical diagnostic efficiency of the two reagents.

CONCLUSIONS

The ORF1ab and N assays of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron on the eDiagnosis platform yielded higher values compared to those on the Fosun platform. Consequently, the eDiagnosis kit has also been used as standard detection reagents. Considering that the Fosun reagent has a relatively low detection limit and targets three single genes, it is more advantageous as a confirmatory reagent for the new museum.