scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Six Molecular Assays based on RT-PCR and Cross Primer Isothermal Amplification for SARS-CoV-2 Detection

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuang Wu ◽  
Xiaolu Shi ◽  
Qiongcheng Chen ◽  
Yixiang Jiang ◽  
Le Zuo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Clinical Diagnosis ◽  
Isothermal Amplification ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Pcr Assays ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract SARS-CoV-2 is a newly emerged coronavirus that was isolated from human infections in recent months. Since drugs and vaccines of Covid-19 are still being developed, accurate pathogen detection plays a crucial role in the current public health crisis. Quantitative real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay has been reliably used for the detection and confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 since the beginning of outbreak, whereas isothermal nucleic acid amplification based point of care automated assays has also been considered as a simpler and rapid alternative. However, since these assays have only been developed and applied for clinical use within a short timeframe, their analytical performance has not been adequately compared to-date. We describe a comparative study between a newly developed cross primer isothermal amplification (CPA) assay (Kit A) and five RT-PCR assays (Kits B to F), using clinical diagnosis as the reference standard to evaluate their sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and accuracy analysis. Clinical samples used (n=52) included throat swabs (n=30), nasal swabs (n=7), nasopharyngeal swabs (n=7) and sputum specimens (n=8), comprised of positive (n=26) and cleared cases (n=26) by clinical diagnosis. For the CPA assay (Kit A), the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy were 100%. Among the five RT-PCR kits, Kits B, C and F had good agreement with clinical diagnosis (Kappa≥0.75), Kits D and E were less congruent (0.4≤Kappa<0.75). Differences between all assays were statistically significant (P<0.001). The reproducibility of RT-PCR assays was determined using a positive sample that was verified by all assays, with standard deviations (SD) between 0.35 and 0.87, and coefficients of variation (CV) between 0.95% and 2.57%, indicating good reproducibility. To further evaluate the CPA assay (Kit A) compared to Kits B and F, throat swabs from close contacts of cases (n=200) were analyzed. All three kits identified the same positive samples and showed total agreement. This is the first comparative study to evaluate a CPA assay and RT-PCR assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection, which could serve as a reference for clinical laboratories and inform testing protocols amid the rapidly evolving COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Six Molecular Assays based on RT-PCR and Cross Primer Isothermal Amplification for SARS-CoV-2 RNA Detection

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuang Wu ◽  
Xiaolu Shi ◽  
Qiongcheng Chen ◽  
Yixiang Jiang ◽  
Le Zuo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nucleic Acid ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Reverse Transcriptase ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Isothermal Amplification ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Background: SARS-CoV-2 is a newly emerged coronavirus, causing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in December, 2019. As drugs and vaccines of COVID-19 remain in development, accurate virus detection plays a crucial role in the current public health crisis. Quantitative real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) kits have been reliably used for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, whereas isothermal nucleic acid amplification-based point-of-care automated kits have also been considered as a simpler and rapid alternative. However, as these kits have only been developed and applied clinically within a short timeframe, their clinical performance has not been adequately evaluated to date. We describe a comparative study between a newly developed cross-priming isothermal amplification (CPA) kit (Kit A) and five RT-qPCR kits (Kits B–F) to evaluate their sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and accuracy. Methods: Fifty-two clinical samples were used including throat swabs (n=30), nasal swabs (n=7), nasopharyngeal swabs (n=7) and sputum specimens (n=8), comprising confirmed (n=26) and negative cases (n=26). SARS-CoV-2 detection was simultaneously performed on each sample using six nucleic acid amplification kits. The sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) and the accuracy for each kit were assessed using clinical manifestation and molecular diagnoses as the reference standard. Reproducibility for RT-qPCR kits was evaluated in triplicate by three different operators using a SARS-CoV-2 RNA-positive sample. On the basis of the six kits’ evaluation results, CPA kit (Kit A) and two RT-qPCR Kits (Kit B and F) were applied to the SARS-CoV-2 detection in close-contacts of COVID-19 patients. Results: For Kit A, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV/NPV and accuracy were 100%. Among the five RT-qPCR kits, Kits B, C and F had good agreement with the clinical diagnostic reports (Kappa≥0.75); Kits D and E were less congruent (0.4≤Kappa<0.75). Differences between all kits were statistically significant (P<0.001). The reproducibility of RT-qPCR kits was determined using a coefficients of variation (CV) between 0.95% and 2.57%, indicating good reproducibility. Conclusions: This is the first comparative study to evaluate CPA and RT-qPCR kits’ specificity and sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and could serve as a reference for clinical laboratories, thus informing testing protocols amid the rapidly progressing COVID-19 pandemic. Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; nucleic acid detection; real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-qPCR); cross-priming isothermal amplification (CPA)

scholarly journals Comparative evaluation of six nucleic acid amplification kits for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuang Wu ◽  
Xiaolu Shi ◽  
Qiongcheng Chen ◽  
Yixiang Jiang ◽  
Le Zuo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nucleic Acid ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Positive Sample ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Specificity And Sensitivity ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Background SARS-CoV-2 is a newly emerged coronavirus, causing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in December, 2019. As drugs and vaccines of COVID-19 remain in development, accurate virus detection plays a crucial role in the current public health crisis. Quantitative real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) kits have been reliably used for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, whereas isothermal nucleic acid amplification-based point-of-care automated kits have also been considered as a simpler and rapid alternative. However, as these kits have only been developed and applied clinically within a short timeframe, their clinical performance has not been adequately evaluated to date. We describe a comparative study between a newly developed cross-priming isothermal amplification (CPA) kit (Kit A) and five RT-qPCR kits (Kits B–F) to evaluate their sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and accuracy. Methods Fifty-two clinical samples were used including throat swabs (n = 30), nasal swabs (n = 7), nasopharyngeal swabs (n = 7) and sputum specimens (n = 8), comprising confirmed (n = 26) and negative cases (n = 26). SARS-CoV-2 detection was simultaneously performed on each sample using six nucleic acid amplification kits. The sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) and the accuracy for each kit were assessed using clinical manifestation and molecular diagnoses as the reference standard. Reproducibility for RT-qPCR kits was evaluated in triplicate by three different operators using a SARS-CoV-2 RNA-positive sample. On the basis of the six kits’ evaluation results, CPA kit (Kit A) and two RT-qPCR Kits (Kit B and F) were applied to the SARS-CoV-2 detection in close-contacts of COVID-19 patients. Results For Kit A, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV/NPV and accuracy were 100%. Among the five RT-qPCR kits, Kits B, C and F had good agreement with the clinical diagnostic reports (Kappa ≥ 0.75); Kits D and E were less congruent (0.4 ≤ Kappa < 0.75). Differences between all kits were statistically significant (P < 0.001). The reproducibility of RT-qPCR kits was determined using a coefficients of variation (CV) between 0.95% and 2.57%, indicating good reproducibility. Conclusions This is the first comparative study to evaluate CPA and RT-qPCR kits’ specificity and sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and could serve as a reference for clinical laboratories, thus informing testing protocols amid the rapidly progressing COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Initial and New Versions of the Gen-Probe Amplified Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Direct Test for Direct Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Respiratory and Nonrespiratory Specimens

1998 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 684-689 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fredy Gamboa ◽  
Gregorio Fernandez ◽  
Eduardo Padilla ◽  
José M. Manterola ◽  
Joan Lonca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mycobacterium Tuberculosis ◽  
Direct Detection ◽  
Turnaround Time ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Direct Test ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Staining Methods ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Respiratory Specimens

We evaluated the initial version of the Amplified Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Direct Test (Gen-Probe) (AMTDT 1) and the new version of AMTDT (AMTDT 2) for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis directly from respiratory and nonrespiratory samples and compared the results with those of culture and staining methods. The assays were applied to 410 respiratory and 272 nonrespiratory samples collected from 515 patients. The combination of the culture results and clinical diagnosis was considered to be the “gold standard.” Ninety-five respiratory specimens were collected from 67 patients with a diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) and 68 nonrespiratory specimens were collected from 61 patients with a diagnosis of extrapulmonary TB. With respiratory specimens, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 83, 100, 100, and 96%, respectively, for AMTDT 1 and 94.7, 100, 100, and 98.4%, respectively, for AMTDT 2. With nonrespiratory specimens, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 83, 100, 100, and 94%, respectively, for AMTDT 1 and 86.8, 100, 100, and 98.4%, respectively, for AMTDT 2. The overall results of AMTDT 1 and AMTDT 2 were concordant for 97% (661 of 682) of the samples. Statistically significant differences in sensitivities were found between AMTDT 1 and AMTDT 2 with respiratory specimens. It was concluded that although both nucleic acid amplification methods are rapid, sensitive, and specific for the detection of M. tuberculosis complex in all types of clinical samples, AMTDT 2 appeared to be more sensitive than AMTDT 1 when applied to smear-negative specimens. In contrast AMTDT 2 is more susceptible than AMTDT 1 to inhibitory substances in the amplification reaction. The turnaround time of AMTDT 2 is shorter (3.5 h) than that for AMTDT 1 (5 h).

scholarly journals Development of an in-house loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and evaluation in sputum samples of Nepalese patients

2008 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 439-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Basu Dev Pandey ◽  
Ajay Poudel ◽  
Tomoko Yoda ◽  
Aki Tamaru ◽  
Naozumi Oda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mycobacterium Tuberculosis ◽  
Lamp Assay ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Isothermal Amplification ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Lamp Method ◽  
Rrna Gene ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Loop Mediated Isothermal Amplification ◽  
System A

A number of nucleic acid amplification assays (NAAs) have been employed to detect tubercle bacilli in clinical specimens for tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis. Among these, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) is an NAA possessing superior isothermal reaction characteristics. In the present study, a set of six specific primers targeting the Mycobacterium tuberculosis 16S rRNA gene with high sensitivity was selected and a LAMP system (MTB-LAMP) was developed. Using this system, a total of 200 sputum samples from Nepalese patients were investigated. The sensitivity of MTB-LAMP in culture-positive samples was 100 % (96/96), and the specificity in culture-negative samples was 94.2 % (98/104, 95 % confidence interval 90.5–97.9 %). The positive and negative predictive values of MTB-LAMP were 94.1 and 100 %, respectively. These results indicate that this MTB-LAMP method may prove to be a powerful tool for the early diagnosis of TB.

scholarly journals Rapid isothermal amplification and portable detection system for SARS-CoV-2

2020 ◽  
Vol 117 (37) ◽  
pp. 22727-22735 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anurup Ganguli ◽  
Ariana Mostafa ◽  
Jacob Berger ◽  
Mehmet Y. Aydin ◽  
Fu Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Limit Of Detection ◽  
Detection System ◽  
Alternative Pathway ◽  
Rna Extraction ◽  
Lamp Assay ◽  
Isothermal Amplification ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Complete Agreement ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Viral Transport Medium

The COVID-19 pandemic provides an urgent example where a gap exists between availability of state-of-the-art diagnostics and current needs. As assay protocols and primer sequences become widely known, many laboratories perform diagnostic tests using methods such as RT-PCR or reverse transcription loop mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP). Here, we report an RT-LAMP isothermal assay for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and demonstrate the assay on clinical samples using a simple and accessible point-of-care (POC) instrument. We characterized the assay by dipping swabs into synthetic nasal fluid spiked with the virus, moving the swab to viral transport medium (VTM), and sampling a volume of the VTM to perform the RT-LAMP assay without an RNA extraction kit. The assay has a limit of detection (LOD) of 50 RNA copies per μL in the VTM solution within 30 min. We further demonstrate our assay by detecting SARS-CoV-2 viruses from 20 clinical samples. Finally, we demonstrate a portable and real-time POC device to detect SARS-CoV-2 from VTM samples using an additively manufactured three-dimensional cartridge and a smartphone-based reader. The POC system was tested using 10 clinical samples, and was able to detect SARS-CoV-2 from these clinical samples by distinguishing positive samples from negative samples after 30 min. The POC tests are in complete agreement with RT-PCR controls. This work demonstrates an alternative pathway for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics that does not require conventional laboratory infrastructure, in settings where diagnosis is required at the point of sample collection.

scholarly journals Field performance evaluation of the PanBio rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay in an epidemic driven by 501Y.v2 (lineage B.1.351) in the Eastern Cape, South Africa

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oluwakemi Laguda Akingba ◽  
Kaitlin Sprong ◽  
Diana Ruth Hardie
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Field Performance ◽  
Evaluation Study ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Eastern Cape ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Assay Sensitivity ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Mobile Community

AbstractBackgroundSouth Africa was the African country most severely affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic during 2020, experiencing 2 waves of infection. During the first wave, diagnostics were largely based on reverse transcription-linked PCR (RT-PCR). The Abbott PanBio antigen test was deployed during the 2nd wave which was driven by emergence of the 501Y.v2 variant. At the time of evaluation in mid-November 2020, 501Y.v2 was the dominant circulating virus in Nelson Mandela Bay, in the Eastern Cape Province.MethodsA prospective diagnostic evaluation study was undertaken, during a period of high community transmission, to evaluate the field performance of the PanBio antigen RTD. Testing was conducted at mobile community testing centres on 677 ambulant patients seeking SARS-CoV-2 testing. RT-PCR was performed on the original naso-pharyngeal antigen swabs to evaluate test performance.ResultsOf 146 RT-PCR positive individuals, 101 were RTD positive in the clinic. The antigen RTD had an overall sensitivity of 69.2% (95%CI 61.4, 75.8) and specificity of 99.0% (95%CI 98.8, 99.3) in this clinical context. Sensitivity was strongly dependent on the amount of virus in clinical samples, as reflected by the PCR cycle threshold (CT) value, with 100% detection in samples where the CT was <20, 96% with CT between 20-25, 89% with CT between 26-30 and 64% when CT was 31-35.ConclusionsThe assay reliably detected 501Y.v2 infections in ambulatory ill patients. Assay sensitivity was >90% in patients with high viral loads who are expected to be most infectious. Negative and positive predictive values were also >90%.

scholarly journals Simultaneous Detection and Identification of Human Parainfluenza Viruses 1, 2, and 3 from Clinical Samples by Multiplex PCR

1998 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 1388-1391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan E. Echevarría ◽  
Dean D. Erdman ◽  
Ella M. Swierkosz ◽  
Brian P. Holloway ◽  
Larry J. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Simultaneous Detection ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Parainfluenza Viruses ◽  
Detection And Identification ◽  
Serotype 1 ◽  
Pcr Assays ◽  
Syncytial Virus ◽  
Human Parainfluenza Viruses

Reverse transcription (RT)-PCR assays have been widely described for use in the diagnosis of human parainfluenza viruses (HPIVs) and other respiratory virus pathogens. However, these assays are mostly monospecific, requiring separate amplifications for each HPIV type. In the present work, we describe multiplex RT-PCR assays that detect and differentiate HPIV serotypes 1, 2, and 3 in a combined reaction. Specifically, a mixture of three pairs of primers to conserved regions of the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase gene of each HPIV serotype was used for primary amplification, yielding amplicons with similar sizes. For typing, a second amplification was performed with a mixture of nested primers, yielding amplicons with sizes easily differentiated by agarose gel electrophoresis. A modified single-amplification RT-PCR assay with fluorescence-labeled nested primers, followed by analysis of the labeled products on an automated sequencing gel, was also evaluated. Fifteen temporally and geographically diverse HPIV isolates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention archives and 26 of 30 (87%) previously positive nasopharyngeal specimens (8 of 10 positive for HPIV serotype 1 [HPIV1], 9 of 10 positive for HPIV2, and 9 of 10 positive for HPIV3) were positive and were correctly typed by both assays. Negative results were obtained with naso- or oropharyngeal specimens and/or culture isolates of 33 unrelated respiratory tract pathogens, including HPIV4, enterovirus, rhinovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, adenovirus, influenza virus, and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Our multiplex RT-PCR assays provide sensitive, specific, and simplified tools for the rapid diagnosis of HPIV infections.

scholarly journals A quite sensitive fluorescent loop-mediated isothermal amplification for rapid detection of respiratory syncytial virus

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 1135-1141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yihong Hu ◽  
Zhenzhou Wan ◽  
Yonglin Mu ◽  
Yi Zhou ◽  
Jia Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Syncytial Virus ◽  
Rapid Detection ◽  
Limit Of Detection ◽  
Isothermal Amplification ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
High Morbidity ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Loop Mediated Isothermal Amplification ◽  
Syncytial Virus ◽  
Syto 9

Introduction: Human respiratory syncytial virus (hRSV) is a common respiratory virus closely related to respiratory tract infection (RTI). Rapid and accurate detection of hRSV is urgently needed to reduce the high morbidity and mortality due to hRSV infection. Methodology: Here, we established a highly sensitive and specific reverse-transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assay for the rapid detection of A and B group hRSV simultaneously. The specific primer sets for hRSV A and B groups were designed in the M and M2-2 gene, respectively. SYTO 9 was used as the fluorescent dye for real-time monitoring of the amplification of hRSV RNA without cross reaction between hRSV A and B. Results: The limit of detection (LOD) of our new method was 281.17 50% tissue culture infective doses (TCID50)/mL for hRSV A and 1.58 TCID50/mL for hRSV B. Using 90 clinical samples, a comparison to traditional RT-PCR was performed to validate this assay. The positivity rate of RT-LAMP and RT-PCR were 67.8% and 55.6%, respectively, and the positivity rate of RT-LAMP was significantly higher than RT-PCR (χ2 test, P < 0.01). Conclusions: Compared with traditional RT-PCR method, the newly developed fluorescent RT-LAMP combined with well-designed primers and SYTO 9 is quite sensitive, specific, rapid and well applicable to hRSV clinical diagnosis.

scholarly journals Highly performing point-of-care molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2 with RNA extraction and isothermal amplification.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Garneret ◽  
Etienne Coz ◽  
Elian Martin ◽  
Jean-Claude Manuguerra ◽  
Elodie Brient-Litzler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Point Of Care ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Rna Extraction ◽  
Dna Amplification ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Temperature Cycling ◽  
Isothermal Amplification ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Molecular Testing

In order to respond to the urgent request of massive testing, developed countries perform nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) of SARS-CoV-2 in centralized laboratories. Real-time RT - PCR (Reverse transcription - Polymerase Chain Reaction) is used to amplify the viral RNA and enable its detection. Although PCR is 37 years old, it is still considered, without dispute, as the gold standard. PCR is an efficient process, but the complex engineering required for automated RNA extraction and temperature cycling makes it incompatible for use in point of care settings. In the present work, by harnessing progress made in the past two decades in DNA amplification, microfluidics and membrane technologies, we succeeded to create a portable test, in which SARS-CoV-2 RNA is extracted, amplified isothermally by RT - LAMP (Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification), and detected using intercalating dyes or highly fluorescent probes. Depending on the viral load, the detection takes between twenty minutes and one hour. Using pools of naso-pharyngal clinical samples, we estimated a sensitivity comparable to RT-qPCR (up to a Cycle threshold of 39, equivalent to <0.1 TCID50 per mL) and a 100% specificity, for other human coronaviruses and eight respiratory viruses currently circulating in Europe. We designed and fabricated an easy-to-use portable device called COVIDISC to carry out the test at the point of care. The low cost of the materials along with the absence of complex equipment paves the way towards a large dissemination of this device. The perspective of a reliable SARS-CoV-2 point of care detection, highly performing, that would deliver on-site results in less than one hour opens up a new efficient approach to manage the pandemics.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Abbott LCx Mycobacterium tuberculosis Assay for Direct Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex in Human Samples

1999 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 229-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Grazia Garrino ◽  
Youri Glupczynski ◽  
Josiane Degraux ◽  
Henri Nizet ◽  
Michel Delmée
Keyword(s):  
Mycobacterium Tuberculosis ◽  
Direct Detection ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Culture Methods ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Direct Microscopy ◽  
Standard Culture ◽  
Small Gain ◽  
Clinical Interest ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Seven hundred thirty-seven clinical samples from 460 patients were processed for direct detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex by a semiautomated ligase chain reaction commercial assay, the LCx Mycobacterium tuberculosis Assay (LCx assay) from Abbott Laboratories. Results were compared to those of direct microscopy and standard microbiological culture. Of 26 patients (5.7%) with a culture positive for M. tuberculosis, 22 (84.6%) were found positive by the LCx assay. The sensitivity of the LCx assay was 98% for smear-positive samples and 27% for smear-negative samples. With an overall culture positivity rate forM. tuberculosis of 8.3% (61 of 737 samples) and after resolution of discrepant results according to clinical data, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the LCx assay were 78, 100, 95, and 98%, respectively, compared to 85, 100, 100, and 98%, respectively, for culture and 67, 99, 87, and 97%, respectively, for acid-fast staining. In conclusion, the LCx assay proved satisfactory and appears to be an easy-to-use 1-day test which must be used with standard culture methods but can considerably reduce diagnosis time versus culture. However, its clinical interest appears to be limited in our population with low mycobacterial prevalence because of its cost considering the small gain in sensitivity versus direct microscopy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document