Comparison of Two Molecular Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19: Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 and Allplex™ 2019-nCoV, in the Epidemic Context in Senegal
- 1 AIDS Program of the Senegalese Armed Forces, Military Hospital of Ouakam, Dakar, Senegal
- 2 Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Military Hospital of Ouakam, Dakar, Senegal
- 3 Service of Immunology, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Odonto-Stomatology, Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal
- 4 Service of Immunology, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Odonto-Stomatology, Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal
- 5 Service of Immunology, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Odonto-Stomatology, Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal
- 6 Service of Molecular Biology, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Odonto-Stomatology, Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal
Abstract
Background: The persistence of the rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic is linked to the appearance of several variants of SARS-CoV2 with an impact on biological diagnosis, treatment and vaccination. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted several SARS-CoV-2 detection tests Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for diagnosis and better epidemiological surveillance. Thus, multiple RT-PCR tests have been developed and brought to market in order to meet the urgent need for the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, comparative data between these tests in clinical laboratories are scarcely available to assess their performance. Objective: To compare two molecular methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2: the RT-PCR, Allplex ™ 2019-nCoV tests on CFX96 Bio-Rad and the Abbott m2000sp/rt RealTime SARS-CoV-2. Materials and Methods: Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were taken from patients to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection. For each sample, we searched for the virus with two different RT-PCR tests: 1) first on Abbott m2000 SARS-CoV-2 targeting the N and RdRp genes, 2) then on Allplex ™ 2019-nCoV Assay looking for the E, N and RdRp genes. Results: Percentages of the agreement were calculated. A total of 100 samples that tested negative and 90 positives on Abbott m2000 SARS-CoV-2 were retested on Allplex ™ 2019-nCoV. Overall agreement was 74.74% on all samples. The specific agreement was 84% and 64.4% respectively for negative and positive samples with the RealTime SARS-CoV-2 test. A positive correlation (r 2 = 0.63; p < 0.0001) was found between the two tests associated with a kappa coefficient of 0.5, thus demonstrating an acceptable concordance between the two methods. However, 48 samples gave discordant results, in particular those whose Ct (Cycle threshold) was high (low viremia). A comparison by Cts found that concordance was higher for lower Cts (high viremia) which would indicate the acute phase of the disease. Note that our study revealed a possible cross-reaction with the E gene of a Sarbecovirus. It is a subgenus of Betacoronavirus grouping coronaviruses linked to severe acute respiratory syndromes such as SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion: Our results showed good overall agreement between RT-PCR, Allplex ™ 2019-nCoV and Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 tests in the diagnosis of COVID-19. As the concordance is low for small viremias, the RT-PCR Allplex ™ 2019-nCoV Assay would be better indicated during the acute and symptomatic phase of the disease.
- Gorbalenya, A.E., Baker, S.C., Baric, R.S., De Groot, R.J., Drosten, C., Gulyaeva, A.A., et al. (2020) Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Related Coronavirus: The Species and Its Viruses—A Statement of the Coronavirus Study Group. Nature Microbiology, 5, 536-544. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.07.937862
- Van Kasteren, P.B., Van Der Veer, B., Van Den Brink, S., Wijsman, L., De Jonge, J., Van Den Brandt, A., et al. (2020) Comparison of Seven Commercial RT-PCR Diagnostic Kits for COVID-19. Journal of Clinical Virology, 128, Article ID: 104412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104412
- Zhu, N., Zhang, D., Wang, W., Li, X., Yang, B., Song, J., et al. (2020) A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019. The New England Journal of Medicine, 382, 727-733. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017
- Tao, K., Tzou, P.L., Nouhin, J., Gupta, R.K., De Oliveira, T., Kosakovski, S., et al. (2021) The Biological and Clinical Significance of Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants. Nature Review Genetics, 22, 757-773. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-021-00408-x
- He, X., Hong, W., Pan, X., Lu, G. and Wei, X. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant: Characteristics and Prevention. MedComm, 2, 838-845. https://doi.org/10.1002/mco2.110
- Araf, Y., Akter, F., Tang, Y-D., Fatemi, R., Parvez, S.A., Zheng, C., et al. (2022) Omicron Variant of SARS-CoV-2: Genomics, Transmissibility, and Responses to Current COVID-19 Vaccines. Journal of Medical Virology, 94, 1825-1832. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.27588
- Xu, J., Zhao, S., Teng, T., Abdalla, A.E., Zhu, W., Xie, L., et al. (2020) Systematic Comparison of Two Animal-to-Human Transmitted Human Coronaviruses: SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV. Viruses, 12, Article No. 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/v12020244
- Shen, M., Zhou, Y., Ye, J., Al-Maskri, A.A.A., Kang, Y., Zeng, S., et al. (2020) Recent Advances and Perspectives of Nucleic acid Detection for Coronavirus. Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis, 10, 97-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpha.2020.02.010
- Jamai Amir, I., Lebar, Z., Yahyaoui, G. and Mahmoud, M. (2020) Covid-19: Virologie, épidémiologie et Diagnostic Biologique. Option/Bio, 31, 15-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0992-5945(20)30178-1
- Sheridan, C. (2020) Coronavirus and the Race to Distribute Reliable Diagnostics. Nature Biotechnology, 38, 382-384. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41587-020-00002-2
- Smithgall, M.C., Scherberkova, I., Whittier, S. and Green, D.A. (2020) Comparison of Cepheid Xpert Xpress and Abbott ID Now to Roche Cobas for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2. Journal of Clinical Virology, 128, Article ID: 104428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104428