Comparative evaluation of cost effective extraction free molecular technique for detection of SARS-CoV-2 with reference to standard VTM based RT-qPCR method
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The entire globe is undergoing an unprecedented challenge of COVID-19. Considering the need of rapid and accurate diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2, this study was planned to evaluate the cost effective extraction free RT-PCR technique in comparison to the standard VTM based RT-qPCR method.
Materials and Methods: Paired swabs from nasopharynx and oropharynx were collected for SARS-CoV-2 testing, from 211 adult patients (≥18 years) in VTM and plain sterile tubes (dry swabs). These samples were processed and RT-qPCR was carried out as per standard protocols.
Results: 54.5% of the patients were females and 45.5% were males with sex ratio 1:1.19 (M: F). 38.86% were symptomatic, of which fever (86.59%), cough (79.23%) and breathlessness (46.34%) were the most common symptoms. The positivity by VTM based method and index method was 31.27% and 13.27% respectively. Of the 27 inconclusive results from index method, 37.04% were positive, 48.15% were negative by VTM based method. However, in 40 inconclusive results by VTM based method, 90% were negative and rest remained inconclusive by index method. The sensitivity and specificity of the index method were 39.39% and 85.71% respectively. The overall agreement between VTM based method and index method was 49.59% with estimated Kappa value of 0.19.
Conclusion: VTM based method showed higher sensitivity compared to the index method. The higher positivity by VTM based method, suggests that VTM based method could plausibly be a better detection method of SARS-CoV-2. Still, the index method might add value in a resource limited setups for detection of SARS-CoV-2.
2. Fan Q, Zhang W, Li B, Li DJ, Zhang J, Zhao F. Association between ABO blood group system and COVID-19 susceptibility in Wuhan. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2020; 10: 404.
3. Kumar R, Nagpal S, Kaushik S, Mendiratta S. COVID-19 diagnostic approaches: different roads to the same destination. Virusdisease 2020; 31: 97-105.
4. Giri B, Pandey S, Shrestha R, Pokharel K, Ligler FS, Neupane BB. Review of analytical performance of COVID-19 detection methods. Anal Bioanal Chem 2021; 413: 35-48.
5. Rahbari R, Moradi N, Abdi M. rRT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2: analytical considerations. Clin Chim Acta 2021; 516: 1-7.
6. World Health Organization. World Health Organization; 2020. Laboratory Testing for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Suspected Human Cases: Interim Guidance, 2020.
7. Tang YW, Schmitz JE, Persing DH, Stratton CW. Laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19: current issues and challenges. J Clin Microbiol 2020; 58(6): e00512-20.
8. Bruce EA, Huang ML, Perchetti GA, Tighe S, Laaguiby P, Hoffman JJ, et al. Direct RT-qPCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA from patient nasopharyngeal swabs without an RNA extraction step. PLoS Biol 2020; 18(10): e3000896.
9. Kiran U, Gokulan CG, Kuncha SK, Vedagiri D, Chander BT, Sekhar AV, et al. Easing diagnosis and pushing the detection limits of SARS-CoV-2. Biol Methods Protoc 2020; 5(1): bpaa017.
10. Badawi A, Ryoo SG. Prevalence of comorbidities in the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis 2016; 49: 129-133.
11. Channappanavar R, Fett C, Mack M, Ten Eyck PP, Meyerholz DK, Perlman S. Sex-based differences in susceptibility to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection. J Immunol 2017; 198: 4046-4053.
12. Chen N, Zhou M, Dong X, Qu J, Gong F, Han Y, et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. Lancet 2020; 395: 507-513.
13. Jiang F, Deng L, Zhang L, Cai Y, Cheung CW, Xia Z. Review of the clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). J Gen Intern Med 2020; 35: 1545-1549.
14. Li Q, Guan X, Wu P, Wang X, Zhou L, Tong Y, et al. Early transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China, of novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 1199-1207.
15. Zhang JJ, Dong X, Cao YY, Yuan YD, Yang YB, Yan YQ, et al. Clinical characteristics of 140 patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, China. Allergy 2020; 75: 1730-1741.
16. Jin JM, Bai P, He W, Wu F, Liu XF, Han DM, et al. Gender differences in patients with COVID-19: focus on severity and mortality. Front Public Health 2020; 8: 152.
17. Wang B, Li R, Lu Z, Huang Y. Does comorbidity increase the risk of patients with COVID-19: evidence from meta-analysis. Aging (Albany NY) 2020; 12: 6049-6057.
18. Azer SA. COVID-19: pathophysiology, diagnosis, complications and investigational therapeutics. New Microbes New Infect 2020; 37: 100738.
19. Singhal T. A review of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Indian J Pediatr 2020; 87: 281-286.
20. Lima CMAO. Information about the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Radiol Bras 2020; 53(2): V–VI.
21. Esbin MN, Whitney ON, Chong S, Maurer A, Darzacq X, Tjian R. Overcoming the bottleneck to widespread testing: a rapid review of nucleic acid testing approaches for COVID-19 detection. RNA 2020; 26: 771-783.
22. Alcoba-Floreza J, González-Montelongob R, Íñigo-Camposb A, de Artola DG, Gil-Campesinoa H, The Microbiology Technical Support Team, et al. Fast SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR in preheated nasopharyngeal swab samples. Int J Infect Dis 2020; 97: 66-68.
Files | ||
Issue | Vol 13 No 6 (2021) | |
Section | Original Article(s) | |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/ijm.v13i6.8073 | |
Keywords | ||
COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Coronavirus; Molecular diagnostic; Real time polymerase chain reaction |
Rights and permissions | |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |