Comparison of real‐time and droplet digital PCR to detect and quantify SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA in plasma. (8th February 2021)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Comparison of real‐time and droplet digital PCR to detect and quantify SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA in plasma. (8th February 2021)
- Main Title:
- Comparison of real‐time and droplet digital PCR to detect and quantify SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA in plasma
- Authors:
- Tedim, Ana P.
Almansa, Raquel
Domínguez‐Gil, Marta
González‐Rivera, Milagros
Micheloud, Dariela
Ryan, Pablo
Méndez, Raúl
Blanca‐López, Natalia
Pérez‐García, Felipe
Bustamante, Elena
Gómez, José Manuel
Doncel, Cristina
Trapiello, Wysali
Kelvin, Alyson A.
Booth, Ryan
Ostadgavahi, Ali Toloue
Oneizat, Ruth
Puertas, Carolina
Barbé, Ferrán
Ferrer, Ricard
Menéndez, Rosario
Bermejo‐Martin, Jesús F
Eiros, José María
Kelvin, David J
Torres, Antoni - Abstract:
- Abstract: Background: The presence of SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA in plasma has been linked to disease severity and mortality. We compared RT‐qPCR to droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) to detect SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA in plasma from COVID‐19 patients (mild, moderate, and critical disease). Methods: The presence/concentration of SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA in plasma was compared in three groups of COVID‐19 patients (30 outpatients, 30 ward patients and 30 ICU patients) using both RT‐qPCR and ddPCR. Plasma was obtained in the first 24h following admission, and RNA was extracted using eMAG. ddPCR was performed using Bio‐Rad SARS‐CoV‐2 detection kit, and RT‐qPCR was performed using GeneFinder™ COVID‐19 Plus RealAmp Kit. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Science. Results: SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA was detected, using ddPCR and RT‐qPCR, in 91% and 87% of ICU patients, 27% and 23% of ward patients and 3% and 3% of outpatients. The concordance of the results obtained by both methods was excellent (Cohen's kappa index = 0.953). RT‐qPCR was able to detect 34/36 (94.4%) patients positive for viral RNA in plasma by ddPCR. Viral RNA load was higher in ICU patients compared with the other groups ( P < .001), by both ddPCR and RT‐qPCR. AUC analysis revealed Ct values (RT‐qPCR) and viral RNA load values (ddPCR) can similarly differentiate between patients admitted to wards and to the ICU (AUC of 0.90 and 0.89, respectively). Conclusion: Both methods yielded similar prevalence of RNAemia betweenAbstract: Background: The presence of SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA in plasma has been linked to disease severity and mortality. We compared RT‐qPCR to droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) to detect SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA in plasma from COVID‐19 patients (mild, moderate, and critical disease). Methods: The presence/concentration of SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA in plasma was compared in three groups of COVID‐19 patients (30 outpatients, 30 ward patients and 30 ICU patients) using both RT‐qPCR and ddPCR. Plasma was obtained in the first 24h following admission, and RNA was extracted using eMAG. ddPCR was performed using Bio‐Rad SARS‐CoV‐2 detection kit, and RT‐qPCR was performed using GeneFinder™ COVID‐19 Plus RealAmp Kit. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Science. Results: SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA was detected, using ddPCR and RT‐qPCR, in 91% and 87% of ICU patients, 27% and 23% of ward patients and 3% and 3% of outpatients. The concordance of the results obtained by both methods was excellent (Cohen's kappa index = 0.953). RT‐qPCR was able to detect 34/36 (94.4%) patients positive for viral RNA in plasma by ddPCR. Viral RNA load was higher in ICU patients compared with the other groups ( P < .001), by both ddPCR and RT‐qPCR. AUC analysis revealed Ct values (RT‐qPCR) and viral RNA load values (ddPCR) can similarly differentiate between patients admitted to wards and to the ICU (AUC of 0.90 and 0.89, respectively). Conclusion: Both methods yielded similar prevalence of RNAemia between groups, with ICU patients showing the highest (>85%). RT‐qPCR was as useful as ddPCR to detect and quantify SARS‐CoV‐2 RNAemia in plasma. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- European journal of clinical investigation. Volume 51:Number 6(2021)
- Journal:
- European journal of clinical investigation
- Issue:
- Volume 51:Number 6(2021)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 51, Issue 6 (2021)
- Year:
- 2021
- Volume:
- 51
- Issue:
- 6
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2021-0051-0006-0000
- Page Start:
- n/a
- Page End:
- n/a
- Publication Date:
- 2021-02-08
- Subjects:
- COVID‐19 -- ddPCR -- RNAemia -- RT‐qPCR -- SARS‐CoV‐2 -- viral RNA load
Pathology -- Periodicals
Medical research -- Periodicals
616.075 - Journal URLs:
- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2362 ↗
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1111/eci.13501 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0014-2972
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 3829.727100
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library STI - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 23374.xml