Home > Research > Datasets > Second round of an interlaboratory comparison o...
View graph of relations

Second round of an interlaboratory comparison of SARS-CoV2 molecular detection assays used by 45 veterinary diagnostic laboratories in the United States

Dataset

  • Kaiping Deng (Creator)
  • Steffen Uhlig (Creator)
  • Laura B. Goodman (Creator)
  • Hon S. Ip (Creator)
  • Mary Lea Killian (Creator)
  • Sarah M. Nemser (Creator)
  • Jodie Ulaszek (Creator)
  • Shannon Kiener (Creator)
  • Matthew Kmet (Creator)
  • Kirstin Frost (Creator)
  • Karina Hettwer (Creator)
  • Bertrand Colson (Creator)
  • Kapil Nichani (Creator)
  • Anja Schlierf (Creator)
  • Andriy Tkachenko (Creator)
  • Mothomang Mlalazi-Oyinloye (Creator)
  • Andrew Scott (Creator)
  • Ravinder Reddy (Creator)
  • Gregory H. Tyson (Creator)

Description

The COVID-19 pandemic presents a continued public health challenge. Veterinary diagnostic laboratories in the United States use RT-rtPCR for animal testing, and many laboratories are certified for testing human samples; hence, ensuring that laboratories have sensitive and specific SARS-CoV2 testing methods is a critical component of the pandemic response. In 2020, the FDA Veterinary Laboratory Investigation and Response Network (Vet-LIRN) led an interlaboratory comparison (ILC1) to help laboratories evaluate their existing RT-rtPCR methods for detecting SARS-CoV2. All participating laboratories were able to detect the viral RNA spiked in buffer and PrimeStore molecular transport medium (MTM). With ILC2, Vet-LIRN extended ILC1 by evaluating analytical sensitivity and specificity of the methods used by participating laboratories to detect 3 SARS-CoV2 variants (B.1; B.1.1.7 [Alpha]; B.1.351 [Beta]) at various copy levels. We analyzed 57 sets of results from 45 laboratories qualitatively and quantitatively according to the principles of ISO 16140-2:2016. More than 95% of analysts detected the SARS-CoV2 RNA in MTM at ≥500 copies for all 3 variants. In addition, for nucleocapsid markers N1 and N2, 81% and 92% of the analysts detected ≤20 copies in the assays, respectively. The analytical specificity of the evaluated methods was >99%. Participating laboratories were able to assess their current method performance, identify possible limitations, and recognize method strengths as part of a continuous learning environment to support the critical need for the reliable diagnosis of COVID-19 in potentially infected animals and humans.
Date made available2022
PublisherSAGE Journals

Contact person