• Amorce Lima, Vicki Healer, Elaine Vendrone, and Suzane Silbert.
• Esoteric Testing/R&D Laboratory, Tampa General Hospital, 1 Tampa General Cir, Tampa, FL, United States. Electronic address: alima@tgh.org.
• J. Clin. Virol. 2020 Dec 1; 133: 104688.

AbstractSevere 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 decide 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 NeuMoDxTM SARS-CoV-2 and DiaSorin SimplexaTM Covid-19 Direct assays. In silico analysis and clinical sample testing showed that the primers/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 159 nasopharyngeal swabs specimen tested within 1-5 days after 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.Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

20 keywords...

hide…