RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluation of two RT-PCR techniques for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in serum for microbiological diagnosis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.11.15.20231795
DO 10.1101/2020.11.15.20231795
A1 Martín Ramírez, Alexandra
A1 Zurita Cruz, Nelly Daniela
A1 Gutiérrez-Cobos, Ainhoa
A1 Rodríguez Serrano, Diego Aníbal
A1 Álvaro, Isidoro González
A1 Vallejo, Emilia Roy
A1 de Frutos, Sara Gómez
A1 García-Rodrigo, Leticia Fontán
A1 Domingo, Laura Cardeñoso
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/16/2020.11.15.20231795.abstract
AB Presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in serum (viraemia) in COVID-19 patients has been related to poor prognosis and death.The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of two commercial reverse real-time-PCR (rRT-PCR) kits, cobas® SARS-CoV-2 (Cobas® test) and TaqPath™ COVID-19 CE-IVD RT-PCR Kit (Taqpath™ test), to detect viraemia in COVID-19 patients and their implementation as routine diagnosis in microbiology laboratory.This retrospective cohort study was conducted with 203 adult patients admitted to Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, (89 Intensive Care Unit and 114 ward) with at least one serum sample collected in the first 48 hours from admission. A total 265 serum samples were included for study.Evaluation of both rRT-PCR techniques was performed comparing with the gold standard, a Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Nucleic Acid Diagnostic Kit; considering at least one target as a positive result.Comparison of Cobas® test and Taqpath™ test with the gold standard method, showed high values of specificity (93.75 and 92.19 respectively) and Positive Predictive Value (92.92 and 99.88 respectively). Nevertheless, sensitivity (53.72 and 73.63 respectively) and Negative Predictive Value (32.53 and 42.99 respectively) were lower; Kappa values were 0.35 for cobas® test and 0.56 for Taqpath™ test.For both techniques, differences of viraemia detection between the ICU and non-ICU patients were significant (p≤0.001).Consequently, SARS-CoV-2 viraemia positive results obtained by both rRT-PCR should be considered good tools and may help in handling COVID-19 patients.Moreover, these methods could be easily integrated in the routine laboratory COVID-19 diagnosis and may open new strategies based on an early COVID-19 treatment.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialThis is a retrospective cohort studyFunding StatementThe authors did not receive any fundings to do the study.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The stydy was approved by the Hospital Universitario La Princesa independent ethics research committee (reference number 4267, acta CEIm 21/20)All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data referred in our manuscript are available to see for every one who wants to do it.