4.3 Article

Evaluation of the BioFire® COVID-19 test and Respiratory Panel 2.1 for rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab samples

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2020.115260

关键词

COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; BioFire; FilmArray; Laboratory Developed Test; RP2.1

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The BioFire COVID-19 Test and RP2.1 are rapid and highly sensitive assays for detecting SARS-CoV-2, which have received emergency use authorization from the FDA and Health Canada. Both tests demonstrated 100% concordance with a laboratory-developed test for clinical samples, showing their effectiveness for rapid testing in clinical laboratories.
The BioFire (R) COVID-19 Test and Respiratory Panel 2.1 (RP2.1) are rapid, fully automated assays for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in nasopharyngeal swabs. In the case of the RP2.1, an additional 21 viral and bacterial pathogens can be detected. Both tests have received emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration and Interim Order authorization from Health Canada for use in clinical laboratories. We evaluated the performance characteristics of these tests in comparison to a laboratory-developed real-time PCR assay targeting the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and E genes. A total of 78 tests were performed using the BioFire COVID-19 Test, including 30 clinical specimens and 48 tests in a limit of detection study; 57 tests were performed using the RP2.1 for evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 detection, including 30 clinical specimens and 27 tests for limit of detection. Results showed 100% concordance between the BioFire assays and the laboratory-developed test for all clinical samples tested, and acceptable performance of both BioFire assays at their stated limits of detection. Conclusively, the BioFire COVID-19 Test and RP2.1 are highly sensitive assays that can be effectively used in the clinical laboratory for rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据