Comparison of Commercially Available and Laboratory-Developed Assays for In Vitro Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Laboratories

J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Jul 23;58(8):e00821-20. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00821-20. Print 2020 Jul 23.

Abstract

Multiple laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) and commercially available assays have emerged to meet diagnostic needs related to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. To date, there is limited comparison data for these different testing platforms. We compared the analytical performance of a LDT developed in our clinical laboratory based on CDC primer sets and four commercially available, FDA emergency use authorized assays for SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid, DiaSorin, Hologic Panther, and Roche Cobas) on a total of 169 nasopharyngeal swabs. The LDT and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assays were the most sensitive assays for SARS-CoV-2 with 100% agreement across specimens. The Hologic Panther Fusion, DiaSorin Simplexa, and Roche Cobas 6800 failed to detect positive specimens only near the limit of detection of our CDC-based LDT assay. All assays were 100% specific, using our CDC-based LDT as the gold standard. Our results provide initial test performance characteristics for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) and highlight the importance of having multiple viral detection testing platforms available in a public health emergency.

Keywords: COVID; COVID-19; SARS; SARS-CoV-2; comparison; coronavirus; qPCR.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Evaluation Study

MeSH terms

  • Betacoronavirus / genetics
  • Betacoronavirus / isolation & purification*
  • COVID-19
  • COVID-19 Testing
  • Clinical Laboratory Techniques / methods*
  • Coronavirus Infections / diagnosis*
  • Humans
  • Nasopharynx / virology
  • Pandemics
  • Pneumonia, Viral / diagnosis*
  • SARS-CoV-2
  • Sensitivity and Specificity