Causes and Clinical Relevance of Inconclusive SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time Reverse Transcription- PCR Test Results
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background: Inconclusive SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcription-PCR (rRT-PCR) test results, which are positive for one or more target genes but not all, are problematic in clinical laboratories. In this study, we aimed to investigate the cause and clinical relevance of such inconclusive results. Methods: rRT-PCR was performed using the Allplex 2019-nCoV assay kit (Seegene Inc., Korea) targeting the following three genes: E, RdRp, and N. For all inconclusive test results reported from March to June 2020, the frequency per kit, lot number, specimen type, cycle threshold (Ct) and peak values of the amplification curves, positive target genes, and results of repeated or consecutive tests were analyzed. Results: A total of 43,268 tests were conducted, of which 93 (0.21%) were inconclusive—49 from 11 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and 44 from non-COVID-19 patients. In COVID-19 patients, the results were inconclusive 11.9 ± 4.7 days after diagnosis and were negative 8.8 ± 5.5 days after the inconclusive results were reported. However, in non- COVID-19 patients, they were all negative upon retest and 81.8% of them were identified to have yielded in 2 out of 8 lots. The most frequently positive target genes were N (55.4%) in COVID-19 and RdRp (61.2%) in non-COVID-19 patients, respectively. No difference was observed in the Ct or peak values of the amplification curves for inconclusive samples between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cases. Conclusion: Inconclusive test results should be reported neither positive nor negative. Such results can be reported as inconclusive without retesting in COVID-19 patients; however, they should certainly be confirmed by a retest in non-COVID-19 patients or newly diagnosed cases.
Abstract
Background: Inconclusive SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcription-PCR (rRT-PCR) test results, which are positive for one or more target genes but not all, are problematic in clinical laboratories. In this study, we aimed to investigate the cause and clinical relevance of such inconclusive results. Methods: rRT-PCR was performed using the Allplex 2019-nCoV assay kit (Seegene Inc., Korea) targeting the following three genes: E, RdRp, and N. For all inconclusive test results reported from March to June 2020, the frequency per kit, lot number, specimen type, cycle threshold (Ct) and peak values of the amplification curves, positive target genes, and results of repeated or consecutive tests were analyzed. Results: A total of 43,268 tests were conducted, of which 93 (0.21%) were inconclusive—49 from 11 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and 44 from non-COVID-19 patients. In COVID-19 patients, the results were inconclusive 11.9 ± 4.7 days after diagnosis and were negative 8.8 ± 5.5 days after the inconclusive results were reported. However, in non- COVID-19 patients, they were all negative upon retest and 81.8% of them were identified to have yielded in 2 out of 8 lots. The most frequently positive target genes were N (55.4%) in COVID-19 and RdRp (61.2%) in non-COVID-19 patients, respectively. No difference was observed in the Ct or peak values of the amplification curves for inconclusive samples between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cases. Conclusion: Inconclusive test results should be reported neither positive nor negative. Such results can be reported as inconclusive without retesting in COVID-19 patients; however, they should certainly be confirmed by a retest in non-COVID-19 patients or newly diagnosed cases.
참고문헌 (19)
- Zhou P, "A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin", Nature, 579, pp.270~273 (2020)
- "Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic"[URL]
- "Laboratory testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in suspected human cases"[URL]
- "List of COVID-19 diagnostic kits authorized for use under emergency use authorizations"[URL]
- Corman VM, "Detection of 2019novel coronavirus(2019-nCoV)by real-time RT-PCR", Euro Surveill, 25, pp.2000045~ (2020)
- Ki Ho Hong, "Guidelines for Laboratory Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Korea", Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 40(5), pp.351~360 (2020), 대한진단검사의학회[DOI]
- Heungsup Sung, "COVID-19 Molecular Testing in Korea: Practical Essentials and Answers From Experts Based on Experiences of Emergency Use Authorization Assays", Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 40(6), pp.439~447 (2020), 대한진단검사의학회[DOI]
- Hur KH, "Evaluation of four commercial kits for SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction approved by emergency-use-authorization in Korea", Front Med, 7, pp.521~ (2020)
- Penarrubia L, "Multiple assays in a real-time RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 panel can mitigate the risk of loss of sensitivity by new genomic variants during the COVID-19 outbreak", Int J Infect Dis, 97, pp.225~229 (2020)
- "Response guidelines against COVID-19"[URL]
- Jung J, "Re : low-dose corticosteroid therapy does not delay viral clearance in patients with COVID-19", J Infect, 81, pp.e79~e81 (2020)
- Sung H, "Nationwide external quality assessment of SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing, South Korea", Emerg Infect Dis, 26, pp.2353~ (2020)
- Barry A, "SARS-CoV-2 shedding and infectivity", Lancet, 395, pp.1339~1340 (2020)
- "Findings from investigation and analysis of re-positive cases"[URL]
- Lee J, "Do we really need to isolate all children with COVID-19in healthcare facilities?", J Korean Med Sci, 35, pp.e277~ (2020)
- "Duration of isolation and precautions for adults with COVID-19"[URL]
- Moreno JL, "Identification of a coronavirus transcription enhancer", J Virol, 82, pp.3882~3893 (2008)
- Chu DKW, "Molecular diagnosis of a novel coronavirus(2019-nCoV)causing an outbreak of pneumonia", Clin Chem, 66, pp.549~555 (2020)
- Nalla AK, "Comparative performance of SARS-CoV-2 detection assays using seven different primer-probe sets and one assay kit", J Clin Microbiol, 58, pp.e00557-20~ (2020)