Author: Tedim, Ana P.; Almansa, Raquel; DomÃnguezâ€Gil, Marta; Gonzálezâ€Rivera, Milagros; Micheloud, Dariela; Ryan, Pablo; Méndez, Raúl; Blancaâ€López, Natalia; Pérezâ€GarcÃa, Felipe; Bustamante, Elena; Gómez, José Manuel; Doncel, Cristina; Trapiello, Wysali; Kelvin, Alyson A.; Booth, Ryan; Ostadgavahi, Ali Toloue; Oneizat, Ruth; Puertas, Carolina; Barbé, Ferrán; Ferrer, Ricard; Menéndez, Rosario; Bermejoâ€Martin, Jesús F; Eiros, José MarÃa; Kelvin, David J; Torres, Antoni
Title: Comparison of realâ€time and droplet digital PCR to detect and quantify SARSâ€CoVâ€2 RNA in plasma Cord-id: wsj16hy8 Document date: 2021_2_8
ID: wsj16hy8
Snippet: BACKGROUND: The presence of SARSâ€CoVâ€2 RNA in plasma has been linked to disease severity and mortality. We compared RTâ€qPCR to droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) to detect SARSâ€CoVâ€2 RNA in plasma from COVIDâ€19 patients (mild, moderate, and critical disease). METHODS: The presence/concentration of SARSâ€CoVâ€2 RNA in plasma was compared in three groups of COVIDâ€19 patients (30 outpatients, 30 ward patients and 30 ICU patients) using both RTâ€qPCR and ddPCR. Plasma was obtained in the f
Document: BACKGROUND: The presence of SARSâ€CoVâ€2 RNA in plasma has been linked to disease severity and mortality. We compared RTâ€qPCR to droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) to detect SARSâ€CoVâ€2 RNA in plasma from COVIDâ€19 patients (mild, moderate, and critical disease). METHODS: The presence/concentration of SARSâ€CoVâ€2 RNA in plasma was compared in three groups of COVIDâ€19 patients (30 outpatients, 30 ward patients and 30 ICU patients) using both RTâ€qPCR and ddPCR. Plasma was obtained in the first 24h following admission, and RNA was extracted using eMAG. ddPCR was performed using Bioâ€Rad SARSâ€CoVâ€2 detection kit, and RTâ€qPCR was performed using GeneFinderâ„¢ COVIDâ€19 Plus RealAmp Kit. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Science. RESULTS: SARSâ€CoVâ€2 RNA was detected, using ddPCR and RTâ€qPCR, in 91% and 87% of ICU patients, 27% and 23% of ward patients and 3% and 3% of outpatients. The concordance of the results obtained by both methods was excellent (Cohen's kappa index = 0.953). RTâ€qPCR was able to detect 34/36 (94.4%) patients positive for viral RNA in plasma by ddPCR. Viral RNA load was higher in ICU patients compared with the other groups (P < .001), by both ddPCR and RTâ€qPCR. AUC analysis revealed Ct values (RTâ€qPCR) and viral RNA load values (ddPCR) can similarly differentiate between patients admitted to wards and to the ICU (AUC of 0.90 and 0.89, respectively). CONCLUSION: Both methods yielded similar prevalence of RNAemia between groups, with ICU patients showing the highest (>85%). RTâ€qPCR was as useful as ddPCR to detect and quantify SARSâ€CoVâ€2 RNAemia in plasma.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- Try single phrases listed below for: 1
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date