Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Sep:154:105242.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2022.105242. Epub 2022 Jul 16.

Harmonization of SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription quantitative PCR tests to the first WHO international standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA

Affiliations

Harmonization of SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription quantitative PCR tests to the first WHO international standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA

Malaya K Sahoo et al. J Clin Virol. 2022 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Cycle threshold (Ct) values from SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) tests are used to measure viral burden. Calibration to the First WHO International Standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA may improve quantitative inter-assay agreement.

Methods: WHO standard was tested using four emergency use authorized RT-qPCRs to generate calibration curves and evaluate Ct value differences. Harmonization of two assays, Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 targeting E and nucleocapsid (N2) [Xpert (E) and Xpert (N2)] and a laboratory-developed test targeting E [LDT (E)], was assessed using 93 positive upper respiratory samples. Platform (target) pairs were compared via Bland-Altman analysis and Passing-Bablok regression.

Results: Ct values with the WHO standard were comparable across platforms and targets, except Xpert (N2) for which the mean difference was a median of 3.68 cycles (Interquartile Range, IQR = 3.23 to 3.76 cycles) greater than other platform (target) pairs. Using clinical samples, the mean difference of Xpert (N2) to LDT (E) was 3.64 cycles (95% Confidence Interval, CI =1.51 to 5.76). After calibration, the mean difference of Xpert (N2) to LDT (E) was 0.08 log10 IU/mL (95% CI = -0.56 to 0.71) and the regression was y = 1.00x * 0.08 (95% CI slope = 0.93 to 1.07, 95% CI intercept = 0.28 to 0.42).

Conclusions: Calibration to the WHO standard resulted in the harmonization of two RT-qPCR tests, whereas analysis by Ct value alone may have led to erroneous quantitation. Harmonization to the WHO standard has the potential to improve the generalizability of clinical associations with SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig. 1
Bland-Altman analysis comparing the cycle threshold (Ct) values of SARS-CoV-2-positive clinical upper respiratory specimens measured using the following platform (target) pairs: Xpert (E) to LDT (E) [A], Xpert (N2) to LDT (E) [B] and Xpert (N2) to Xpert (E) [C]. E, envelope; N2, nucleocapsid; Solid line, mean difference; dotted line, zero difference; dashed lines, 95% confidence intervals.
Fig 2
Fig. 2
Bland-Altman analysis [A-C] and Passing-Bablok regression [D-F] comparing SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels [in log10 international units (IU)/mL] of clinical upper respiratory specimens measured using the following WHO-calibrated platform (target) pairs: Xpert (E) to LDT (E) [A, D], Xpert (N2) to LDT (E) [B, E] and Xpert (N2) to Xpert (E) [C, F]. E, envelope; N2, nucleocapsid; Bland-Altman [A-C]: Solid line, mean difference; dotted line, zero difference; dashed lines, 95% confidence intervals; Passing-Bablok [D-F]: Solid line, regression line; dotted line, line of identity; dashed lines, 95% confidence intervals. The mean values of the WHO standard at each concentration level are represented by the closed diamonds.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Rhoads D.D., Pinsky B.A. The truth about SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold values is rarely pure and never simple. Clin. Chem. 2021;68:16–18. - PubMed
    1. Shah V.P., Farah W.H., Hill J.C., Hassett L.C., Binnicker M.J., Yao J.D., Murad M.H. Association between SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold values and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2021;8:ofab453. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Binnicker M.J. Can testing predict SARS-CoV-2 infectivity? The potential for certain methods to be surrogates for replication-competent virus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2021;59 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rhoads D., Peaper D.R., She R.C., Nolte F.S., Wojewoda C.M., Anderson N.W., Pritt B.S. College of American pathologists (CAP) microbiology committee perspective: caution must be used in interpreting the cycle threshold (Ct) value. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2021;72:e685–e686. - PubMed
    1. Hayden R.T., Caliendo A.M. Persistent challenges of interassay variability in transplant viral load testing. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2020;58 - PMC - PubMed