105 225

Cited 2 times in

Clinical Evaluation of BioFire COVID-19 Test, BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1, and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Assays for Sample-to-Answer Detection of SARS-CoV-2

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author홍기호-
dc.date.accessioned2023-04-20T08:10:52Z-
dc.date.available2023-04-20T08:10:52Z-
dc.date.issued2023-01-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/194014-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Due to the extreme infectivity of SARS-CoV-2, sample-to-answer SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription (RT) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays are urgently needed in order to facilitate infectious disease surveillance and control. The purpose of this study was to evaluate three sample-to-answer SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays—BioFire COVID-19 Test, BioFire RP 2.1, and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2—using clinical samples. Methods: A total of 77 leftover nasopharyngeal swab (NP) swabs (36 positives and 41 negatives) confirmed by reference SARS-CoV-2 RT real-time (q) PCR assay were collected. The clinical sample concordance, as specified by their respective emergency use authorizations (EUAs), in comparison to the reference SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR assay, was assessed. Results: The results showed that all three sample-to-answer SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays provided perfectly concordant results consistent with the reference SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR assay. The BioFire COVID-19 Test exhibited the best turnaround time (TAT) compared to the other assays, regardless of the test results, using one-way analysis of variance followed by Scheffe’s post hoc test (p < 0.001). The Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 showed a shorter average TAT (mean ± standard deviation, 49.9 ± 3.1 min) in the positive samples compared to that (55.7 ± 2.5 min) of the negative samples. Conclusions: Our evaluation demonstrates that the BioFire COVID-19 Test, BioFire RP 2.1, and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assays compare favorably to the reference SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR assay, along with a 100% concordance in assay results for clinical samples and an acceptable analytical performance at their guaranteed limits of detection. The addition of a widely used simultaneous sample-to-answer SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay will contribute to the number of medical laboratories able to test for COVID-19. © 2023 by the authors.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityopen-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherMDPI-
dc.relation.isPartOfGENES-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.subject.MESHCOVID-19 Testing-
dc.subject.MESHCOVID-19* / diagnosis-
dc.subject.MESHClinical Laboratory Techniques / methods-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHNasopharynx-
dc.subject.MESHSARS-CoV-2* / genetics-
dc.subject.MESHSensitivity and Specificity-
dc.titleClinical Evaluation of BioFire COVID-19 Test, BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1, and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Assays for Sample-to-Answer Detection of SARS-CoV-2-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine (의과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Laboratory Medicine (진단검사의학교실)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJoonhong Park-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSo Yeon Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJaehyeon Lee-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKi Ho Hong-
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/genes14010233-
dc.contributor.localIdA06207-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ03926-
dc.identifier.eissn2073-4425-
dc.identifier.pmid36672974-
dc.subject.keywordBioFire COVID-19 Test-
dc.subject.keywordBioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1-
dc.subject.keywordCOVID-19-
dc.subject.keywordSARS-CoV-2-
dc.subject.keywordXpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2-
dc.subject.keywordnext-generation diagnostic systems-
dc.subject.keywordsample-to-answer RT-PCR-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameHong, Ki Ho-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor홍기호-
dc.citation.volume14-
dc.citation.number1-
dc.citation.startPage233-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationGENES, Vol.14(1) : 233, 2023-01-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Laboratory Medicine (진단검사의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.