Back

Validation and Comparison of a Modified CDC Assay with two Commercially Available Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Respiratory Specimen

Lima, A.; Healer, V.; Vendrone, E.; Silbert, S.

2020-06-30 microbiology
10.1101/2020.06.29.179192 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has spread rapidly around the globe since it was first identified in December of 2019 in Wuhan, China. In a race to contain the infection, researchers and healthcare officials have developed several assays to help diagnose individuals with COVID-19. To help laboratories in deciding what assay to bring into testing lines, factors such as assay availability, cost, throughput, and TAT should be considered. Here we validated a modified version of the CDC assay and used it as a reference to evaluate the performance of the NeuMoDx SARS-CoV-2 and DiaSorin Simplexa Covid-19 Direct assays. In silico analysis and clinical sample testing showed that the primesr/probes designed by the CDC were specific to the SARS-CoV-2 as they accurately detected all reactive samples with an assay LoD of 200 copies/ml. The performance of the three assays were analyzed using 161 nasopharyngeal swabs specimen tested within 24 hours or 5 days from routine testing. A 100% agreement was observed between the commercial assays and the modified CDC SARS-CoV-2 assay. A deeper look at the Ct values showed no significant difference between NeuMoDx and the modified CDC SARS-CoV-2 assay, whereas DiaSorin had lower overall Ct values than the modified CDC SARS-CoV-2 assay. NeuMoDx and DiaSorin workflows were much easier to perform. NeuMoDx has the highest throughput and shortest TAT, whereas although the modified CDC SARS-CoV-2 assay has comparable throughput to DiaSorin, it has the longest hands-on time, and highest TAT.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.