Show simple item record

dc.creatorRahman, H.
dc.creatorCarter, I.
dc.creatorBasile, K.
dc.creatorDonovan, L.
dc.creatorKumar, S.
dc.creatorTran, T.
dc.creatorKo, D.
dc.creatorAlderson, S.
dc.creatorSivaruban, T.
dc.creatorEden, J.-S.
dc.creatorRockett, R.
dc.creatorO’Sullivan, M.V.
dc.creatorSintchenko, V.
dc.date.accessioned2020-08-21T14:02:53Z
dc.date.available2020-08-21T14:02:53Z
dc.date.created2020
dc.identifier.issn1386-6532spa
dc.identifier.otherhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104374spa
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12010/12074
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: There is limited data on the analytical performance of commercial nucleic acid tests (NATs) for laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection. Methods: Nasopharyngeal, combined nose and throat swabs, nasopharyngeal aspirates and sputum was collected from persons with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, serial dilutions of SARS-CoV-2 viral cultures and synthetic positive controls (gBlocks, Integrated DNA Technologies) were tested using i) AusDiagnostics assay (AusDiagnostics Pty Ltd); ii) in-house developed assays targeting the E and RdRp genes; iii) multiplex PCR assay targeting endemic respiratory viruses. Discrepant SARS-CoV-2 results were resolved by testing the N, ORF1b, ORF1ab and M genes. Results: Of 52 clinical samples collected from 50 persons tested, respiratory viruses were detected in 22 samples (42 %), including SARS CoV-2 (n = 5), rhinovirus (n = 7), enterovirus (n = 5), influenza B (n = 4), hMPV (n = 5), influenza A (n = 2), PIV-2 (n = 1), RSV (n = 2), CoV-NL63 (n = 1) and CoV-229E (n = 1). SARS-CoV-2 was detected in four additional samples by the AusDiagnostics assay. Using the in-house assays as the "gold standard", the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the AusDiagnostics assay was 100 %, 92.16 %, 55.56 % and 100 % respectively. The Ct values of the real-time in-house-developed PCR assay targeting the E gene was significantly lower than the corresponding RdRp gene assay when applied to clinical samples, viral culture and positive controls (mean 21.75 vs 28.1, p = 0.0031). Conclusions: The AusDiagnostics assay is not specific for the detection SARS-CoV-2. Any positive results should be confirmed using another NAT or sequencing. The case definition used to investigate persons with suspected COVID-19 infection is not specific.spa
dc.format.extent6 páginasspa
dc.format.mimetypeimage/jepgspa
dc.language.isoengspa
dc.publisherJournal of Clinical Virologyspa
dc.sourcereponame:Expeditio Repositorio Institucional UJTLspa
dc.sourceinstname:Universidad de Bogotá Jorge Tadeo Lozanospa
dc.subjectSARS-CoV-2spa
dc.subjectNATspa
dc.subjectCovid-19spa
dc.titleInterpret with caution: An evaluation of the commercial AusDiagnostics versus in-house developed assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 virusspa
dc.type.localArtículospa
dc.subject.lembSíndrome respiratorio agudo gravespa
dc.subject.lembCOVID-19spa
dc.subject.lembSARS-CoV-2spa
dc.subject.lembCoronavirusspa
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccessspa
dc.type.hasversioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersionspa
dc.rights.localAcceso restringidospa
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104374spa
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501spa


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record