Performance evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx® Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel. (June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lebourgeois, Samuel; Storto, Alexandre; Gout, Bernard; Le Hingrat, Quentin; Ardila Tjader, Gustave; Cerdan, Maria del Carmen; English, Alistair; Pareja, Josep; Love, Joanna; Houhou-Fidouh, Nadhira; Manissero, Davide; Descamps, Diane; Visseaux, Benoit
• Is Part Of: International journal of infectious diseases. Volume 107(2021)
• Page Start: 179
• Page End: 181
• Publication Date: 2021-06
• Subjects: SARS-CoV-2 -- COVID-19 -- Diagnostic testing -- Real time-PCR -- Multiplex; Communicable diseases -- Periodicals; Communicable Diseases -- Periodicals; Communicable diseases; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.9
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.04.066
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1201-9712

Abstract

Highlights: Rapid, accurate diagnostics are essential for controlling the spread of COVID-19. Multiplex assays enable efficient differential diagnosis of respiratory infections. QIAstat-Dx® Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel allows fast, accurate COVID-19 diagnosis. Graphical abstract: Abstract: Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the QIAstat-Dx® Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel (QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2), which is a closed, fully automated, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay that detects severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and 21 other pathogens that cause respiratory disease. Methods: Nasopharyngeal swabs from patients with or suspected of having coronavirus disease 2019 were collected and tested at Bichat–Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, France. Using the World Health Organisation-approved real-time-PCR assay developed by the Charité Institute of Virology as the reference, positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) were calculated. Results: In total, 189 negative and 88 positive samples were analyzed. QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 had an NPA of 90.48% (95% confidence interval (CI), 85.37%, 94.26%) and a PPA of 94.32% (95% CI, 87.24%, 98.13%). Co-infections were detected by QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 in 4/277 specimens. The methods exhibited comparable failure rates (23/307 [7.5%] vs. 6/298 [2.0%] for QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 and reference methods, respectively). The turnaround time was shorter for QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 compared with the reference method (difference in mean –14:30 h [standard error, 0:03:23; 95% CI, –14:37, –14:24]; P < 0.001). Conclusions: QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 shows good agreement with the reference assay, providing faster and accurate results for detecting SARS-CoV-2.