Clinical validation of a multiplex PCR-based detection assay using saliva or nasopharyngeal samples for SARS-Cov-2, influenza A and B
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant diversion of human and material resources to COVID-19 diagnostics, to the extent that influenza viruses and co-infection in COVID-19 patients remains undocumented and pose serious public-health consequences. We optimized and validated a highly sensitive RT-PCR based multiplex-assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B viruses in a single-test. This study evaluated clinical specimens (n = 1411), 1019 saliva and 392 nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), tested using two-assays: FDA-EUA approved SARS-CoV-2 assay that targets N and ORF1ab gene, and the PKamp-RT-PCR based assay that targets SARS-CoV-2, influenza viruses A and B. Of the 1019 saliva samples, 17.0% (174/1019) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using either assay. The detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 was higher with the multiplex assay compared to SARS-specific assay [91.9% (160/174) vs. 87.9% (153/174)], respectively. Of the 392 NPS samples, 10.4% (41/392) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using either assay. The detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 was higher with the multiplex assay compared to SARS-specific assay [97.5% (40/41) vs. 92.1% (39/41)], respectively. This study presents clinical validation of a multiplex-PCR assay for testing SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B viruses, using NPS and saliva samples, and demonstrates the feasibility of implementing the assay without disrupting the existing laboratory workflow.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.13.21249629: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The samples were processed under an approved HAC by the IRB Committee A (IRB REGISTRATION # 611298), Augusta University, GA. Based on the IRB approval, all PHI was removed and all data was anonymized before accessing for the study. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this …SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.13.21249629: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The samples were processed under an approved HAC by the IRB Committee A (IRB REGISTRATION # 611298), Augusta University, GA. Based on the IRB approval, all PHI was removed and all data was anonymized before accessing for the study. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
