PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Malecki, Monika AU - Luesebrink, Jessica AU - Wendel, Andreas AU - Mattner, Frauke TI - Analysis of external quality assessment samples revealed crucial performance differences between commercial RT-PCR assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection when taking extraction methods and real-time-PCR instruments into account AID - 10.1101/2020.09.18.20185744 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.09.18.20185744 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.18.20185744.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.18.20185744.full AB - In limelight of the ongoing pandemic SARS-CoV-2 testing is critical for the diagnosis of infected patients, contact-tracing and mitigating the transmission. Diagnostic laboratories are expected to provide appropriate testing with maximum accuracy. Real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) is the diagnostic standard yet many commercial diagnostic kits have become available. However, only a handful of studies have reviewed their performance in clinical settings. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the overall analytical matrix including the extraction kit (BD MAX, Promega, Qiagen), the PCR instrument (Agilent Mx3005P, BD MAX, Qiagen Rotor-Gene, Roche Cobas z 480) and the RT-PCR assay (Altona Diagnostics, CerTest Biotec, R-Biopharm AG) using predefined samples from proficiency testing organizers.The greatest difference of the Ct values between the matrices was 9 cycles. One borderline sample could not be detected by 3 out of 12 analytical matrices and yielded a false negative result. We therefore conclude that diagnostic laboratories should take the complete analytical matrix in addition to the performance values published by the manufacturer for a respective RT-PCR kit into account. With limited resources laboratories have to validate a wide range of kits to determine appropriate analytical matrices for detecting SARS-CoV-2 reliably. The interpretation of clinical results has to be adapted accordingly.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe authors received no specific funding for this work.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:I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines. The samples examined in the manuscript have been acquired from commercial proficiency testing organizers, no human samples and/or data were used. The samples originated from in vitro systems, which I mentioned in the method section.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.YesData available within the article.