Search

Background: RT-PCR is the currently recommended laboratory method for diagnosing acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nevertheless, to carry out this assay, numerous manual steps are necessary, but they are long lasting and error-prone. A new sample preparation solution was launched, the Qiaprep & amp Viral RNA UM kit, that combines a short, liquid-based sample preparation with one-step RT-PCR amplification and detection of SARS-CoV-2. Such alternative allows reducing the handling of samples and obtaining a result in a shorter period of time. The objective of the study was to compare the performance of the kit with RT-PCR., Methods: A prospective trial was carried out in the clinical microbiology laboratory of a tertiary care hospital. The pharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs included in the study were taken from patients who underwent medical consultation because compatible COVID-19 symptoms. Samples were processed simultaneously for the reference RT-PCR and by the QIA P&A kit., Results: 190 samples were included in the clinical trial. The reference RT-PCR method indicated that 125 (66%) samples, out of the 190, were positive. The QIA P&A kit showed 112 positive samples for SARS-CoV-2. The QIA P&A kit has a sensitivity of 86% to detect SARS-CoV-2 and a 100% specificity, the positive predictive value was of 96%, the negative predictive value 78%, and the obtained Kappa value was 0,76. QIA P&A kit showed a lower mean cycle threshold compared with the diagnostic standard, with a statistically significant difference ( p < 0.05)., Conclusion: The QIA P&A kit has an acceptable, yet not optimal performance for sample preparation and amplification of SARS-CoV-2 and further studying is required for it to be validated as a cost-effective, rapid diagnostic method for detecting infections., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Becerril Vargas, Cojuc-Konigsberg, Braverman-Poyastro, Armendáriz Mendoza, Mujica Sánchez, García Colín, Chávez Morales, Aguirre Pineda and Ibarra Cobas.)

Background: COVID-19 requires an early diagnosis to optimize management and limit transmission. SARS-CoV-2 is able to spread effectively. Infected asymptomatic individuals have been found to be contagious. RT-qPCR is the currently recommended laboratory method for diagnosing acute infection. However, rapid antigen detection (RAD) tests are not only fast, but require less specialized training. The possibility of using RAD tests to identify asymptomatic patients is attractive, as it could effectively contribute to minimizing the hospital spread of SARS-CoV-2. The objective of the study was to determine the performance of RAD vs. RT-qPCR for the detection of asymptomatic cases in INER health personnel., Methods: In order to follow WHO guidelines, generalized tests, a test station for health care workers was implemented on demand. A rapid test was carried out and a second sample was taken to be processed by RT-qPCR. With the results of both tests we conducted a retrospective study. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and negative likelihood ratios were calculated., Results: A total of 1640 RAD tests were performed in health care workers (mean age was 39, 69, 47% with a self-reported comorbidity). Participants provided 1,640 valid RAD/RT-qPCR test pairs with 2% testing positive via RT-qPCR. 12 RAD samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Overall sensitivity of the PANBIO ™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test test was 35.2%., Conclusions: RADs are not recommended for the detection of asymptomatic cases due to low performance., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Becerril Vargas, Cojuc-Konigsberg, Alberto Mujica Sánchez, García Colín, Alfredo Camacho Corral, Hansel Chávez Morales, Aguirre Pineda, Martínez Bravo, Ortiz Martínez, Martínez Orozco, Rodríguez-Sánchez, Ochoa, Pantoja Jiménez, Morales Lozada and Cuevas Rodriguez.)