Performance Evaluation of the PowerChek SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A & B Multiplex Real-Time PCR Kit in Comparison with the BioFire Respiratory Panel

Optimization of extraction-free protocols for SARS-CoV-2 detection using a commercial rRT-PCR assay

In the ongoing global fight against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the sample preparation process for real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) faces challenges due to time-consuming steps, labor-intensive procedures, contamination risks, resource demands, and environmental implications. However, optimized strategies for sample preparation have been poorly investigated, and the combination of RNase inhibitors and Proteinase K has been rarely considered. Hence, we investigated combinations of several extraction-free protocols incorporating heat treatment, sample dilution, and Proteinase K and RNase inhibitors, and validated the effectiveness using 120 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 62 negative clinical samples. Combining sample dilution and heat treatment with Proteinase K and RNase inhibitors addition exhibited the highest sensitivity (84.26%) with a mean increase in cycle threshold (Ct) value of + 3.8. Meanwhile, combined sample dilution and heat treatment exhibited a sensitivity of 79.63%, accounting for a 38% increase compared to heat treatment alone. Our findings highlight that the incorporation of Proteinase K and RNase inhibitors with sample dilution and heat treatment contributed only marginally to the improvement without yielding statistically significant differences. Sample dilution significantly impacts SARS-CoV-2 detection, and sample conditions play a crucial role in the efficiency of extraction-free methods. Our findings may provide insights for streamlining diagnostic testing, enhancing its accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability.

Evaluation of the Kaira COVID-19/Flu/RSV Detection Kit for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and respiratory syncytial virus: A comparative study with the PowerChek SARS-CoV-2, influenza A&B, RSV Multiplex Real-time PCR Kit

BACKGROUND

Co-circulation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other respiratory viruses, such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), can be a severe threat to public health. The accurate detection and differentiation of these viruses are essential for clinical laboratories. Herein, we comparatively evaluated the performance of the Kaira COVID-19/Flu/RSV Detection Kit (Kaira; Optolane, Seongnam, Korea) for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B, and RSV in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens with that of the PowerChek SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A&B, RSV Multiplex Real-time PCR Kit (PowerChek; Kogene Biotech, Seoul, Korea).

METHODS

A total of 250 archived NPS specimens collected for routine clinical testing were tested in parallel by the Kaira and PowerChek assays. RNA standards were serially diluted and tested by the Kaira assay to calculate the limit of detection (LOD).

RESULTS

The positive and negative percent agreements between the Kaira and PowerChek assays were as follows: 100% (49/49) and 100% (201/201) for SARS-CoV-2; 100% (50/50) and 99.0% (198/200) for influenza A; 100% (50/50) and 100% (200/200) for influenza B; and 100% (51/51) and 100% (199/199) for RSV, respectively. The LODs of the Kaira assay for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B, and RSV were 106.1, 717.1, 287.3, and 442.9 copies/mL, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Kaira assay showed comparable performance to the PowerChek assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B, and RSV in NPS specimens, indicating that the Kaira assay could be a useful diagnostic tool when these viruses are co-circulating.

False-positive Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay in an emergency room and trauma center: A retrospective chart review study

OBJECTIVES

To review reports false-positive Xpert results in an emergency room and trauma center.

METHODS

Patients' data with false-positive Xpert results from November 2020 to February 2022 at Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea, were extracted from the electronic medical records.

RESULTS

The positive predictive value of Xpert was 40%. Of the 12 patients with false-positive results, 5 (41.7%) were re-positives (such as, patients recovered from coronavirus disease-19 [COVID-19]), and 4 (33.3%) had head or facial trauma. Two out of 4 head or facial trauma cases had documented sample contamination with blood.

CONCLUSION

We found a high incidence of false-positive Xpert results among patients who recovered from COVID-19 and those with head or facial injury. Careful history taking for COVID-19 and physical examination of the sample collection site is essential before Xpert analysis.

Influenza A, Influenza B, and SARS-CoV-2 Similarities and Differences – A Focus on Diagnosis

In late December 2019, the first cases of viral pneumonia caused by an unidentified pathogen were reported in China. Two years later, SARS-CoV-2 was responsible for almost 450 million cases, claiming more than 6 million lives. The COVID-19 pandemic strained the limits of healthcare systems all across the world. Identifying viral RNA through real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction remains the gold standard in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, equipment cost, availability, and the need for trained personnel limited testing capacity. Through an unprecedented research effort, new diagnostic techniques such as rapid diagnostic testing, isothermal amplification techniques, and next-generation sequencing were developed, enabling accurate and accessible diagnosis. Influenza viruses are responsible for seasonal outbreaks infecting up to a quarter of the human population worldwide. Influenza and SARS-CoV-2 present with flu-like symptoms, making the differential diagnosis challenging solely on clinical presentation. Healthcare systems are likely to be faced with overlapping SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza outbreaks. This review aims to present the similarities and differences of both infections while focusing on the diagnosis. We discuss the clinical presentation of Influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and techniques available for diagnosis. Furthermore, we summarize available data regarding the multiplex diagnostic assay of both viral infections.