PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Vogels, Chantal B.F.
AU  - Brito, Anderson F.
AU  - Wyllie, Anne L.
AU  - Fauver, Joseph R.
AU  - Ott, Isabel M.
AU  - Kalinich, Chaney C.
AU  - Petrone, Mary E.
AU  - Landry, Marie L.
AU  - Foxman, Ellen F.
AU  - Grubaugh, Nathan D.
TI  - Analytical sensitivity and efficiency comparisons of SARS-COV-2 qRT-PCR assays
AID  - 10.1101/2020.03.30.20048108
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.03.30.20048108
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/01/2020.03.30.20048108.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/01/2020.03.30.20048108.full
AB  - The recent spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) exemplifies the critical need for accurate and rapid diagnostic assays to prompt public health actions. Currently, several quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) assays are being used by clinical, research, and public health laboratories for rapid detection of the virus. However, it is currently unclear if results from different tests are comparable. Our goal was to evaluate the primer-probe sets used in four common diagnostic assays available on the World Health Organization (WHO) website. To facilitate this effort, we generated RNA transcripts to create standards and distributed them to other laboratories for internal validation. We then used these RNA transcript standards, full-length SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and RNA-spiked mock samples to determine analytical efficiency and sensitivity of nine primer-probe sets. We show that all primer-probe sets can be used to detect SARS-CoV-2, but there are clear differences in the ability to differentiate between true negatives and positives with low amounts of virus. Adding to this, many primer-probe sets, including the “N2” and “N3” sets issued by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have background amplification with SARS-CoV-2-negative nasopharyngeal swabs, which may lead to inconclusive results. Our findings characterize the limitations of commonly used primer-probe sets and can assist other laboratories in selecting appropriate assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research was funded by the generous support from the Yale Institute for Global Health and the Yale School of Public Health start-up package provided to NDG. CBFV is supported by NWO Rubicon 019.181EN.004. Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll 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.YesAnyone can share this material, provided it remains unaltered in any way, this is not done for commercial purposes, and the original authors are credited and cited