Segura-Ulate Ismael, Apú Navilla, Cortés Bernal, Querol-Audi Jordi, Zaldívar Yamitzel, Ortega Carlos Alexander, Flores-Mora Fernando, Gatica-Arias Andrés, Madrigal-Redondo Germán
Instituto de Investigaciones Farmacéuticas (INIFAR), Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica.
Agencia Costarricense de Investigaciones Biomédicas (ACIB) - Fundación INCIENSA (FUNIN), San José, Costa Rica.
Front Mol Biosci. 2024 Aug 23;11:1445142. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2024.1445142. eCollection 2024.
the gold-standard diagnostic protocol (GSDP) for COVID-19 consists of a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) sample processed through traditional RNA extraction (TRE) and amplified with retrotranscription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Multiple alternatives were developed to decrease time/cost of GSDP, including alternative clinical samples, RNA extraction methods and nucleic acid amplification. Thus, we carried out a cross comparison of various alternatives methods against GSDP and each other.
we tested alternative diagnostic methods using saliva, heat-induced RNA release (HIRR) and a colorimetric retrotranscription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) as substitutions to the GSDP.
RT-LAMP using NPS processed by TRE showed high sensitivity (96%) and specificity (97%), closely matching GSDP. When saliva was processed by TRE and amplified with both RT-LAMP and RT-qPCR, RT-LAMP yielded high diagnostic parameters (88%-96% sensitivity and 95%-100% specificity) compared to RT-qPCR. Nonetheless, when saliva processed by TRE and detected by RT-LAMP was compared against the GSDP, the resulting diagnostic values for sensitivity (78%) and specificity (87%) were somewhat high but still short of those of the GSDP. Finally, saliva processed with HIRR and detected via RT-LAMP was the simplest and fastest method, but its sensitivity against GSDP was too low (56%) for any clinical application. Also, in this last method, the acidity of a large percentage of saliva samples (9%-22%) affected the pH-sensitive colorimetric indicator used in the test, requiring the exclusion of these acidic samples or an extra step for pH correction.
our comparison shows that RT-LAMP technology has diagnostic performance on par with RT-qPCR; likewise, saliva offers the same diagnostic functionality as NPS when subjected to a TRE method. Nonetheless, use of direct saliva after a HIRR and detected with RT-LAMP does not produce an acceptable diagnostic performance.
新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)的金标准诊断方案(GSDP)包括通过传统RNA提取(TRE)处理的鼻咽拭子(NPS)样本,并通过逆转录定量聚合酶链反应(RT-qPCR)进行扩增。人们开发了多种替代方法来降低GSDP的时间/成本,包括替代临床样本、RNA提取方法和核酸扩增方法。因此,我们对各种替代方法与GSDP以及它们之间进行了交叉比较。
我们测试了使用唾液、热诱导RNA释放(HIRR)和比色逆转录环介导等温扩增(RT-LAMP)作为GSDP替代方法的诊断方法。
使用经TRE处理的NPS进行RT-LAMP显示出高灵敏度(96%)和特异性(97%),与GSDP密切匹配。当唾液经TRE处理并用RT-LAMP和RT-qPCR进行扩增时,与RT-qPCR相比,RT-LAMP产生了较高的诊断参数(灵敏度为88%-96%,特异性为95%-100%)。然而,当将经TRE处理并用RT-LAMP检测的唾液与GSDP进行比较时,所得的灵敏度(78%)和特异性(87%)诊断值虽略高但仍低于GSDP。最后,用HIRR处理并通过RT-LAMP检测的唾液是最简单、最快的方法,但其对GSDP的灵敏度过低(56%),无法用于任何临床应用。此外,在最后这种方法中,很大比例的唾液样本(9%-22%)的酸度会影响测试中使用的对pH敏感的比色指示剂,需要排除这些酸性样本或增加一步pH校正。
我们的比较表明,RT-LAMP技术具有与RT-qPCR相当诊断性能;同样,当采用TRE方法时,唾液具有与NPS相同的诊断功能。然而,在HIRR后直接使用唾液并用RT-LAMP检测并不能产生可接受的诊断性能。