Comparison of the NeuMoDX, Diasorin Simplexa, Cepheid and Roche CDC SARS-CoV 2 EUA assays using nasopharyngeal/nasal swabs in universal transport media (UTM) and sputum and tracheal aspirates
Tibbetts, R. J.; Callahan, K.; Rofoo, K.; Zarbo, R. J.; Samuel, L. P.
Show abstract
In March 2019 the outbreak of SARS-CoV 2 was officially defined as a pandemic by the World Health Organization and shortly after, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rtPCR) molecular testing for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from NP swabs. Since then, EUA with relaxed regulations were granted to numerous manufacturers and clinical microbiology laboratories to implement in-house testing assays with nasopharyngeal swabs (NP) and subsequently additional specimen types. Because of supply chain shortages leading to competition for reagents, sustaining any significant volume of testing soon became problematic. As a countermeasure, within several weeks the Henry Ford Microbiology Laboratory validated 4 different rtPCR assays and multiple specimen types using NeuMoDX, Diasorin Simplexa, Cepheid and Roche platforms. The purpose of this study was to analyze the analytic sensitivity of these rtPCR assays with NP/nasal swabs and sputum/tracheal aspirates. Qualitative analytic agreement between the 4 platforms for NP/nasal swabs ranged 95% - 100% overall with no statistically significant difference in threshold cT values. Similar results were obtained with the sputum/tracheal aspirates. These data demonstrate the high accuracy and reproducibility in detection of SARS-CoV 2 between the rtPCR assays performed on 4 different platforms with numerous specimen types.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance of Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 rapid nucleic acid amplification test in nasopharyngeal swabs transported in viral media and dry nasal swabs, in a New York City academic institution 98%
- Analytical and Clinical Comparison of Three Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection 98%
- Test Agreement Between Roche Cobas 6800 and Cepheid GeneXpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Assays at High Cycle Threshold Ranges 97%
Similar papers in this journal
- Real-time RT-PCR Allelic Discrimination Assay for Detection of N501Y Mutation in the Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2 Associated with Variants of Concern 97%
- A Reagent and Virus Benchmarking Panel for a Uniform Analytical Performance Assessment of N Antigen–Based Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19 96%
- Performance of the Cue COVID-19 Molecular Test for Point of Care: Insights from a multi-site clinic service model 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Recommendations for sample pooling on the Cepheid GeneXpert(R) system using the Cepheid Xpert(R) Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay 97%
- Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers 96%
- An international, interlaboratory ring trial confirms the feasibility of an open-source, extraction-less “direct” RT-qPCR method for reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in clinical samples 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparative study of four SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) platforms demonstrates that ID NOW performance is impaired substantially by patient and specimen type. 97%
- Verification of the Abbott Alinity m Resp-4-Plex Assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and respiratory syncytial virus 96%
- Analytical Performance of the AMDI Fast PCR Mini Respiratory Panel 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of Cepheid Xpert Xpress and Abbott ID Now to Roche cobas for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 97%
- Is the glass half full? Extraction-free RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard RT-PCR in 101 samples 96%
- Evaluation of three rapid lateral flow antigen detection tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection 96%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.