Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Evaluation of a fully closed real time PCR platform for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs: a pilot study
  1. Caterina De Luca1,
  2. Gianluca Gragnano1,
  3. Floriana Conticelli1,
  4. Michele Cennamo2,
  5. Pasquale Pisapia1,
  6. Daniela Terracciano2,
  7. Umberto Malapelle1,
  8. Emma Montella1,
  9. Maria Triassi1,
  10. Giancarlo Troncone1,
  11. Giuseppe Portella2
  1. 1 Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
  2. 2 Translational Medical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
  1. Correspondence to Professor Giancarlo Troncone, Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy; giancarlo.troncone{at}unina.it

Abstract

Aims To date, reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs is the ‘gold standard’ approach for the diagnosis of COVID-19. The need to develop easy to use, rapid, robust and with minimal hands-on time approaches are warranted. In this setting, the Idylla SARS-CoV-2 Test may be a valuable option. The aim of our study is to evaluate the analytical and clinical performance of this assay on previously tested SARS-CoV-2 people by conventional RT-PCR based approach in different settings, including initial diagnosis and clinical follow-up.

Methods To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the Idylla SARS-CoV-2 Test, we retrieved 55 nasopharyngeal swabs, previously analysed by a fully validated assay, from symptomatic patients or from people who have been in close contact with COVID-19 positive cases. Discordant or high discrepant cases were further analysed by a third technique. In addition, a second subset of 14 nasopharyngeal swab samples with uncertain results (cycle threshold between 37 and 40), by using the fully validated assay, from patients with viral infection beyond day 21, were retrieved.

Results Overall, Idylla showed a sensitivity of 93.9% and a specificity of 100.0%. In addition, in the additional 14 nasopharyngeal swab samples, only five (35.7%) featured a positive result by the Idylla SARS-CoV-2 Test.

Conclusions We demonstrated that the Idylla SARS-CoV-2 Test may represent a valid, fast, highly sensitive and specific RT-PCR test for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

  • COVID-19
  • PCR
  • infection control

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplemental information.

This article is made freely available for personal use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplemental information.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Runjan Chetty.

  • Twitter @PasqualePisapia, @UmbertoMalapel1

  • Contributors Conceptualisation: CDL, GT and GP. Methodology: all authors. Software: all authors. Validation: all authors. Formal analysis: all authors. Investigation: all authors. Resources: all authors. Data curation: all authors. Writing – original draft preparation: CDL, FC, PP, GT, GP. Writing – review and editing: all authors. Visualisation: all authors. Supervision: GT and GP. Project administration: GT and GP. Funding acquisition: GT.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests UM has received personal fees (as consultant and/or speaker bureau) from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, MSD, Amgen, Thermo Fisher Scientifics, Diaceutics, GSK, Merck and AstraZeneca, unrelated to the current work. GT reports personal fees (as speaker bureau or advisor) from Roche, MSD, Pfizer and Bayer, unrelated to the current work.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.