Comparison of RT-PCR Kits Currently in use for Covid-19 infection Diagnosis in Mongolia

Authors

  • Э.Цолмончимэг Анагаахын Шинжлэх Ухааны Үндэсний Их Сургууль , Төрийн Тусгай Албан Хаагчдын Нэгдсэн эмнэлэг Author
  • Г.Цогзолмаа Төрийн Тусгай Албан Хаагчдын Нэгдсэн эмнэлэг Author
  • Ц.Наранзул Төрийн Тусгай Албан Хаагчдын Нэгдсэн эмнэлэг Author
  • Ч.Бат-Оюун Төрийн Тусгай Албан Хаагчдын Нэгдсэн эмнэлэг Author
  • С.Анхбаяр Төрийн Тусгай Албан Хаагчдын Нэгдсэн эмнэлэг Author
  • Б.Мөнхцэцэг Халдварт Өвчин Судлалын Үндэсний төв Author

Keywords:

SARS CoV2, Coronavirus, Influenza, Influenza-like diseases

Abstract

Background: 380 commercial kits have been developed and commercialized worldwide. In Mongolia we use Chinese, Russian, German, American, Korean and own country’s Kits for detection of Covid -19 infection. Only few studies are done for sensitivity and specificity analysis for commercial RT-PCR kits in our country. Aim: To evaluate specificity and sensitivity of commercial RT-PCR kits currently in use in our country. Materials and Methods: Commercially available 7 SARS-CoV-2 detection RT-PCR Kits were used for comparison and 94 participants, who are referred to National Center for Communicable Disease for detection of Covid-19 infections, included. Nasopharyngeal swab collected within 1-2 days after patient diagnosis. SARS-CoV-2 stock solution was diluted in 2 mL 0.9% NaCl solution for detection of RNA dependent screening. Samples were diluted by sequential dilution technique. Each dilution sample were tested by RT-PCR assays and determined Ct values. Results: Sensitivity and specificity of 7 RT-PCR Kits (Seegene “AllplexTM SARS-CoV-2 Assay” (Seegene), XABT “Multiple Real-Time PCR Kit for Detection of 2019-CoV” (Xabt), WANTAI “SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Kit” (Wantai), 3D MED “ANDIS SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B, RT-qPCR Detection Kit” (3D MED), CHOROS MNG “SARSCoV-2 RT-qPCR” (Choros MNG), BGI “Real-time fluorescent RT-PCR kit detecting 2019-nCoV” (BGI), SD Sensor “STANDART M nCoV Real-Time Detection kit” (SD Sensor)) currently in use were used for comparison. At least 6 positive results indicates “Positive” result. At least 6 negative results indicate “negative” result. 4 Kits (57.1%) detected all positive 62 cases as positive. 1 Kit (14.3%) detected 61 cases positive. 1 kit (14.3%) detected 58 cases as positive. 4 kits (57.1%) detected all 32 negative cases as negative. 2 Kits (28.6%) detected 30 cases as negative. 1 Kit (14.3%) detected 28 cases as negative. Sensitivity and specificity using 2x2 table showed 100% sensitivity is detected in Seegene, Wantai, Choros MNG, SD Sensor Kits, 98.38% in BGI Kit, 98.13% in 3D MED Kit, 93.54% in Xabt kit respectively. While high 100% specificity is detected in Xabt, Wantai, 3D MED, BGI Kits, 93.75% in Seegene, SD Sensor, 87.5% in Chorus MNG Kit. According to the negative and positive predictive value analysis Xabt, Wantai, 3D MED, BGI had 100% PPV, Seegene, Wantai, Choros MNG, SD Sensor Kits had 100% NPV. Conclusion: The sensitivity and specificity of the RT-PCR tests used in our country for the detection of COVID-19 infection differed. Seegene, Wantai, Choros MNG, and SD Sensor had high sensitivity, while Xabt, Wantai, 3D MED, and BGI had high specificity.

In the MNUMS Digital Library

View this article in the digital library →

Author research profiles: Г.Цогзолмаа

Published

2022-11-02

Issue

Section

Original Articles