Becerril Vargas E, Cojuc-Konigsberg G, Braverman-Poyastro A, Armendáriz Mendoza E, Mujica Sánchez MA, García Colín MDC, Chávez Morales HH, Aguirre Pineda JN, Ibarra Cobas LC. Diagnostic performance of the Qiaprep amp Viral RNA UM kit for the detection of COVID-19 compared to RT-PCR.
Front Med (Lausanne) 2022;
9:976090. [PMID:
36275813 PMCID:
PMC9582594 DOI:
10.3389/fmed.2022.976090]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2022] [Accepted: 09/23/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Background
RT-PCR is the currently recommended laboratory method for diagnosing acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nevertheless, to carry out this assay, numerous manual steps are necessary, but they are long lasting and error-prone. A new sample preparation solution was launched, the Qiaprep & amp Viral RNA UM kit, that combines a short, liquid-based sample preparation with one-step RT-PCR amplification and detection of SARS-CoV-2. Such alternative allows reducing the handling of samples and obtaining a result in a shorter period of time. The objective of the study was to compare the performance of the kit with RT-PCR.
Methods
A prospective trial was carried out in the clinical microbiology laboratory of a tertiary care hospital. The pharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs included in the study were taken from patients who underwent medical consultation because compatible COVID-19 symptoms. Samples were processed simultaneously for the reference RT-PCR and by the QIA P&A kit.
Results
190 samples were included in the clinical trial. The reference RT-PCR method indicated that 125 (66%) samples, out of the 190, were positive. The QIA P&A kit showed 112 positive samples for SARS-CoV-2. The QIA P&A kit has a sensitivity of 86% to detect SARS-CoV-2 and a 100% specificity, the positive predictive value was of 96%, the negative predictive value 78%, and the obtained Kappa value was 0,76. QIA P&A kit showed a lower mean cycle threshold compared with the diagnostic standard, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05).
Conclusion
The QIA P&A kit has an acceptable, yet not optimal performance for sample preparation and amplification of SARS-CoV-2 and further studying is required for it to be validated as a cost-effective, rapid diagnostic method for detecting infections.
Collapse