The QuantuMDx Q-POC SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay for rapid detection of COVID-19 at point-of-care: preliminary evaluation of a novel technology
Caffry, J.; Selby, M.; Barr, K.; Morgan, G.; McGurk, D.; Scully, P.; Park, C.; Caridis, A.-M.; Southworth, E.; Morrison, J.; Clark, D. J.; Eckersley, N. M.; Groppelli, E.; Kirwan, D. E.; Monahan, I.; Augustin, Y.; Toombs, C.; Planche, T.; Staines, H. M.; Krishna, S.
Show abstract
BackgroundAccurate, affordable, and rapid point-of-care (PoC) diagnostics are critical to the global control and management of the COVID-19 pandemic. The current standard for accurate diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is laboratory-based reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Here, we report a preliminary prospective performance evaluation of the QuantuMDx Q-POC SARS CoV-2 RT-PCR assay. MethodsBetween November 2020 and March 2021, we obtained 49 longitudinal nose and throat swabs from 29 individuals hospitalised with RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 at St Georges NHS Foundation Trust, London (UK). In addition, we obtained 101 mid nasal swabs from healthy volunteers in June 2021. We then used these samples to evaluate the Q-POC SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay. The primary analysis was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the Q-POC test against a reference laboratory-based RT-PCR assay. ResultsThe overall sensitivity of the Q-POC test compared with the reference test was 96.88% (83.78%-99.92% CI) for a cycle threshold (Ct) cut-off value for the reference test of 35 and 80.00% (64.35% to 90.95% CI) without altering the reference tests Ct cut-off value of 40. ConclusionsThe Q-POC test is a sensitive, specific and rapid point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 at a reference Ct cut-off value of 35. The Q-POC test provides an accurate and affordable option for RT-PCR at point-of-care without the need for sample pre-processing and laboratory handling. The Q-POC test would enable rapid diagnosis and clinical triage in acute care and other settings.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Handling and accuracy of four rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR 96%
- Clinical evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay on a fully automated system for rapid on-demand testing in the hospital setting 96%
- 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%
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance of the Cue COVID-19 Molecular Test for Point of Care: Insights from a multi-site clinic service model 97%
- A Reagent and Virus Benchmarking Panel for a Uniform Analytical Performance Assessment of N Antigen–Based Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19 96%
- Analytical comparison of over-the-counter multiplex tests for influenza A, influenza B and SARS-CoV-2 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- A highly effective reverse-transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assay for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection 96%
- Performance characteristics of five antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic infection: a head-to-head benchmark comparison 95%
- Comparison between mid-nasal swabs and buccal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection in mild COVID-19 patients 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Analytical and Clinical Comparison of Three Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection 97%
- Evaluation of Serological SARS-CoV-2 Lateral Flow Assays for Rapid Point of Care Testing 96%
- Comparison of Commercially Available and Laboratory Developed Assays for in vitro Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Laboratories 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Point of Care Devices in the Laboratory and Clinical Setting 97%
- Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers 97%
- Evaluation of the accuracy and ease-of-use of Abbott PanBio - A WHO emergency use listed, rapid, antigen-detecting point-of-care diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 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.