These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis by commercial kits: Effectivity of RT-PCR to the RT-LAMP.
    Author: Artik Y, Coşğun AB, Cesur NP, Hızel N, Uyar Y, Sur H, Ayan A.
    Journal: J Med Virol; 2022 May; 94(5):1998-2007. PubMed ID: 34997587.
    Abstract:
    Coronavirus disease 2019 or COVID-19 caused by novel coronavirus/severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 or 2019-nCoV) is an ongoing pandemic that has emerging global effects and requires rapid and reliable diagnostic testing. Quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (q-RT-PCR) is the gold standard method for SARS-CoV-2 detections. On the other hand, new approaches remedy the diagnosis difficulties gradually. Reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) as one of these novel approaches may also contribute to faster and cheaper field-based testing. The present study was designed to evaluate this rapid screening diagnostic test that can give results in 30-45 min and to compare the effectiveness of LAMP to the q-RT-PCR. The 30 randomly chosen patient samples were generated by nasopharyngeal swabs with a portion of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic sequence. The sample of quantification cycle (Cq) values was tested using RT-LAMP as well as by conventional q-RT-PCR. The patient samples were tested with four different kits (SENSObiz COVID-19 [SARS-CoV-2] LAMP Assay, the QIAseq DIRECT SARS-CoV-2 kit, Biospeedy SARS-CoV-2 Variant Plus kit, and CoVirion-CV19-2 SARS-CoV-2 OneStep RT-PCR kit) and two different PCR devices (GDS Rotor-Gene Q Thermocycler and Inovia Technologies GenX series). Based on 30 patient samples, the positive/negative ratio (P/N) was 30/0 as Biospeedy and Covirion (positivity 100%), 28/2 as Qiagen kit (positivity 93.3%) for the samples studied on the Inovia device while the same samples on the Rotor-Gene device were 30/0 as Biospeedy and Covirion (positivity 100%), 29/1 as Qiagen kit at the first day (96.7%). On the fifth day, the samples were studied in the Inovia device and the respective results were obtained: 27/3 as Biospeedy (positivity 90%), 16/14 as Qiagen (positivity 53.3%), 28/2 as Covirion kit (positivity 93.3%). When these samples were studied in the Rotor-Gene device, it was 29/1 in Biospeedy and Covirion (positivity 96.7%), 19/11 in the Qiagen kit (positivity 63.3%). When these samples were compared with the LAMP method it was found to be 19/11 (positivity 63.3%) on the first day and 18/12 (positivity 60%) on the fifth day. SARS-CoV-2 test studies will contribute to a proactive approach to the development of rapid diagnosis systems. The LAMP approach presents promising results to monitor exposed individuals and also improves screening efforts in potential ports of entry.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]