103 219

Cited 1 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

Authors
 Joonhong Park  ;  So Yeon Kim  ;  Jaehyeon Lee  ;  Ki Ho Hong 
Citation
 GENES, Vol.14(1) : 233, 2023-01 
Journal Title
GENES
Issue Date
2023-01
MeSH
COVID-19 Testing ; COVID-19* / diagnosis ; Clinical Laboratory Techniques / methods ; Humans ; Nasopharynx ; SARS-CoV-2* / genetics ; Sensitivity and Specificity
Keywords
BioFire COVID-19 Test ; BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1 ; COVID-19 ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 ; next-generation diagnostic systems ; sample-to-answer RT-PCR
Abstract
Background: 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.
Files in This Item:
T202301807.pdf Download
DOI
10.3390/genes14010233
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Laboratory Medicine (진단검사의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Hong, Ki Ho(홍기호) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5700-9036
URI
https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/194014
사서에게 알리기
  feedback

qrcode

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

Browse

Links