Evaluation of recombinase-based isothermal amplification assays for point-of-need detection of SARS-CoV-2 in resource-limited settings
Objectives: The democratization of diagnostics is one of the key challenges towards containing the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) around the globe. The operational complexities of existing PCR-based methods, including sample transfer to advanced central laboratories with expensi...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Elsevier
2022
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/0bf6d75303944f858e799fd4ec6bcef9 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Objectives: The democratization of diagnostics is one of the key challenges towards containing the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) around the globe. The operational complexities of existing PCR-based methods, including sample transfer to advanced central laboratories with expensive equipment, limit their use in resource-limited settings. However, with the advent of isothermal technologies, the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is possible at decentralized facilities. Methods: In this study, two recombinase-based isothermal techniques, reverse transcription recombinase polymerase amplification (RT-RPA) and reverse transcription recombinase-aided amplification (RT-RAA), were evaluated for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples. A total of 76 real-time reverse transcription PCR (real-time RT-PCR) confirmed COVID-19 cases and 100 negative controls were evaluated to determine the diagnostic performance of the isothermal methods. Results: This investigation revealed equally promising diagnostic accuracy of the two methods, with a sensitivity of 76.32% (95% confidence interval 65.18–85.32%) when the target genes were RdRP and ORF1ab for RT-RPA and RT-RAA, respectively; the combination of N and RdRP in RT-RPA augmented the accuracy of the assay at a sensitivity of 85.53% (95% confidence interval 75.58–92.55%). Furthermore, high specificity was observed for each of the methods, ranging from 94.00% to 98.00% (95% confidence interval 87.40–9.76%). Conclusions: Considering the diagnostic accuracies, both RT-RPA and RT-RAA appear to be suitable assays for point-of-need deployment for the detection of the pathogen, understanding its epidemiology, case management, and curbing transmission. |
|---|