Multicenter Evaluation of the BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1 (RP2.1) for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Nasopharyngeal Swab Samples.

As the incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) begins to overlap with the traditional respiratory season in the Northern Hemisphere, simultaneous testing for SARS-CoV-2 and the other common causes of respiratory infections is imperative. This has led to the development of multiplex respiratory assays that include SARS-CoV-2 as a target. One such assay is the BioFire respiratory panel 2.1 (RP2.1), which is an expansion of the original BioFire FilmArray respiratory panel 2 (RP2) to include SARS-CoV-2. In this multicenter evaluation, we assessed the performance characteristics of the BioFire RP2.1 for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. One or more targets on the panel were detected in 19.3% (101/524) of specimens tested, with SARS-CoV-2 detected in 12.6% (66/524) of specimens. Human rhinovirus/enterovirus was also detected in 32.7% (33/101) and adenovirus in 3.0% (3/101) of positive specimens, with one dual positive for both SARS-CoV-2 and adenovirus being detected. A further breakdown of pathogens by age revealed a 4-fold predominance of human rhinovirus/enterovirus in subjects 0 to 18 years of age, whereas in all other age groups, SARS-CoV-2 was clearly the predominant pathogen. Overall, SARS-CoV-2 results obtained from the BioFire RP2.1 were highly concordant with the composite result, exhibiting 98.4% (61/62) positive percent agreement (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.4 to 99.7%) and 98.9% (457/462) negative percent agreement (95% CI, 97.5 to 99.5%) with further analysis of discordant results suggesting that the concentration of SARS-CoV-2 in the specimens was near the limit of detection (LoD) for both the BioFire RP2.1 and the comparator assays. Overall, the BioFire RP2.1 exhibited excellent performance in the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Evaluation of the Alinity m Resp-4-Plex Assay for the Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, Influenza A Virus, Influenza B Virus, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus.

The rapid emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has introduced a new challenge in diagnosing and differentiating respiratory infections. Accurate diagnosis of respiratory infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is complicated by overlapping symptomology, and stepwise approaches to testing for each infection would lead to increased reagent usage and cost, as well as delays in clinical interventions. To avoid these issues, multiplex molecular assays have been developed to differentiate between respiratory viruses in a single test to meet clinical diagnostic needs. To evaluate the analytical performance of the FDA emergency use authorization (EUA)-approved Abbott Alinity m resp-4-plex assay (Alinity m) in testing for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A virus, influenza B virus, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), we compared its performance to those of both the EUA-approved Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B virus, and RSV assay (Xpert Xpress) and the EUA-approved Roche Cobas SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B virus assay (Cobas) in a single-center retrospective analysis. High concordance was observed among all three assays, with kappa statistics showing an almost perfect agreement (>0.90). The limit of detection (LOD) results for SARS-CoV-2 showed the Alinity m exhibiting the lowest LOD at 26 copies/mL, followed by the Cobas at 58 copies/mL and the Xpert Xpress at 83 copies/mL, with LOD results for the influenza A virus, influenza B virus, and RSV viral targets also showing equivalent or better performance on the Alinity m compared to the other two platforms. The Alinity m can be used as a high-volume testing platform for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A virus, influenza B virus, and RSV and exhibits analytical performance comparable to those of both the Xpert Xpress and Cobas assays. IMPORTANCE The rapid emergence of SARS-CoV-2 has introduced a new challenge in diagnosing and differentiating respiratory infections, especially considering the overlapping symptomology of many of these infections and differences in clinical interventions depending on the pathogen identified. To avoid these issues, multiplex molecular assays like the one described in this article need to be developed to differentiate between the most common respiratory pathogens in a single test and most effectively meet clinical diagnostic needs.

Multicenter Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV Test.

With the approach of respiratory virus season in the Northern Hemisphere, clinical microbiology and public health laboratories will need rapid diagnostic assays to distinguish severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections for diagnosis and surveillance. In this study, the clinical performance of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV test (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) for nasopharyngeal swab specimens was evaluated in four centers: Johns Hopkins Medical Microbiology Laboratory, Northwell Health Laboratories, NYC Public Health Laboratory, and Los Angeles County/University of Southern California (LAC+USC) Medical Center. A total of 319 nasopharyngeal swab specimens, positive for SARS-CoV-2 (n = 75), influenza A virus (n = 65), influenza B virus (n = 50), or RSV (n = 38) or negative (n = 91) by the standard-of-care nucleic acid amplification tests at each site, were tested using the Cepheid panel test. The overall positive percent agreement for the SARS-CoV-2 target was 98.7% (n = 74/75), and the negative agreement was 100% (n = 91), with all other analytes showing 100% total agreement (n = 153). Standard-of-care tests to which the Cepheid panel was compared included the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2, Cepheid Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV, GenMark ePlex respiratory panel, BioFire respiratory panel 2.1 and v1.7, DiaSorin Simplexa COVID-19 Direct, and Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assays. The Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV test showed high sensitivity and accuracy for all analytes included in the test. This test will provide a valuable clinical diagnostic and public health solution for detecting and differentiating SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B virus, and RSV infections during the current respiratory virus season.

Analytical and Clinical Comparison of Three Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in December 2019 and has quickly become a worldwide pandemic. In response, many diagnostic manufacturers have developed molecular assays for SARS-CoV-2 under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) pathway. This study compared three of these assays, the Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay (Fusion), the Hologic Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay (Aptima), and the BioFire Defense COVID-19 test (BioFire), to determine analytical and clinical performance as well as workflow. All three assays showed similar limits of detection (LODs) using inactivated virus, with 100% detection, ranging from 500 to 1,000 genome equivalents/ml, whereas use of a quantified RNA transcript standard showed the same trend but had values ranging from 62.5 to 125 copies/ml, confirming variability in absolute quantification of reference standards. The clinical correlation found that the Fusion and BioFire assays had a positive percent agreement (PPA) of 98.7%, followed by the Aptima assay at 94.7%, compared to the consensus result. All three assays exhibited 100% negative percent agreement (NPA). Analysis of discordant results revealed that all four samples missed by the Aptima assay had cycle threshold (Ct ) values of >37 by the Fusion assay. In conclusion, while all three assays showed similar relative LODs, we showed differences in absolute LODs depending on which standard was employed. In addition, the Fusion and BioFire assays showed better clinical performance, while the Aptima assay showed a modest decrease in overall PPA. These findings should be kept in mind when making platform testing decisions.

Clinical Evaluation of Three Sample-to-Answer Platforms for Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has now spread across the globe. As part of the worldwide response, many molecular diagnostic platforms have been granted emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to identify SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Our objective was to evaluate three sample-to-answer molecular diagnostic platforms (Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 [Xpert Xpress], Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 [ID NOW], and GenMark ePlex SARS-CoV-2 Test [ePlex]) to determine analytical sensitivity, clinical performance, and workflow for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs from 108 symptomatic patients. We found that Xpert Xpress had the lowest limit of detection (100% detection at 100 copies/ml), followed by ePlex (100% detection at 1,000 copies/ml), and ID NOW (20,000 copies/ml). Xpert Xpress also had highest positive percent agreement (PPA) compared to our reference standard (98.3%) followed by ePlex (91.4%) and ID NOW (87.7%). All three assays showed 100% negative percent agreement (NPA). In the workflow analysis, ID NOW produced the lowest time to result per specimen (∼17 min) compared to Xpert Xpress (∼46 min) and ePlex (∼1.5 h), but what ID NOW gained in rapid results, it lost in analytical and clinical performance. ePlex had the longest time to results and showed a slight improvement in PPA over ID NOW. Information about the clinical and analytical performance of these assays, as well as workflow, will be critical in making informed and timely decisions on testing platforms.

Comparison of Four Molecular In Vitro Diagnostic Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Nasopharyngeal Specimens.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the novel human coronavirus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was first discovered in December 2019 as the cause of an outbreak of pneumonia in the city of Wuhan, Hubei province, China. The clinical presentation of COVID-19 is fairly nonspecific, and symptoms overlap those of other seasonal respiratory infections concurrently circulating in the population. Furthermore, it is estimated that up to 80% of infected individuals experience mild symptoms or are asymptomatic, confounding efforts to reliably diagnose COVID-19 empirically. To support infection control measures, there is an urgent need for rapid and accurate molecular diagnostics to identify COVID-19-positive patients. In the present study, we evaluated the analytical sensitivity and clinical performance of the following four SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic assays granted emergency use authorization by the FDA using nasopharyngeal swabs from symptomatic patients: the New York SARS-CoV-2 Real-time Reverse Transcriptase (RT)-PCR Diagnostic Panel (modified CDC) assay, the Simplexa COVID-19 Direct (Diasorin Molecular) assay, GenMark ePlex SARS-CoV-2 (GenMark) assay, and the Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 (Hologic) assay. This information is crucial for both laboratories and clinical teams as decisions on which testing platform to implement are made.

Comparison of the Panther Fusion and BD MAX Group B Streptococcus (GBS) Assays for Detection of GBS in Prenatal Screening Specimens.

Streptococcus agalactiae or group B Streptococcus (GBS) is the cause of early- and late-onset GBS disease in neonates and can present as septicemia, meningitis, and pneumonia. Our objective was to compare the performance of two FDA-approved nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), the Panther Fusion and BD MAX systems, for detection of GBS in vaginal-rectal screening specimens. A total of 510 vaginal-rectal prepartum specimens were tested simultaneously in both NAATs following broth enrichment. Assay agreement was calculated using kappa statistics. Overall agreement between assays was 99.0% (505/510; 95% confidence interval, 0.951 to 0.997; kappa = 0.974). Discordant results were retested with both assays and by standard culture. The assays were also compared for workflow characteristics, including time to first results (TFR), total turnaround time (TAT), number of return visits to load additional specimens, and hands-on time (HoT). Using a standard run size of 60 specimens/day, the Panther Fusion assay had a longer TFR (2.4 versus 2.0 h) but showed a shorter overall TAT for all 60 samples (3.98 versus 7.18 h) due to an increased initial sample loading capacity, and it required less labor (35.0 versus 71.3 s/sample) and fewer return visits for loading additional specimens (0 versus 2). The Panther Fusion system also had a larger sample loading capacity (120 versus 24 samples) and greater 8-h throughput (335 versus 96 samples). In summary, the Panther Fusion GBS assay has clinical performance comparable to that of the BD MAX GBS assay but provides a faster TAT, less HoT, and higher throughput.

Performance Evaluation of the Luminex Aries C. difficile Assay in Comparison to Two Other Molecular Assays within a Multihospital Health Care Center.

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) remain a serious issue in the United States. Fast and accurate diagnosis of CDI is paramount to achieve immediate infection control initiation, triaging, and isolation, as well as appropriate antibiotic treatment. However, both, over- and underdiagnosis can lead to adverse patient outcomes, such as unnecessary administration of antibiotics or unwanted spread of spores in any hospital setting, respectively. In this prospective study, we evaluated the FDA-cleared Aries C. difficile assay and compared its performance and workflow characteristics to those of the BD Max Cdiff and Xpert C. difficile/Epi assays. Out of 302 samples tested, 55 (18.2%) samples were positive, and 234 (77.5%) samples were negative for C. difficile by all three testing methods. Comparison results showed a positive and negative percent agreement (PPA and NPA, respectively) between the Aries and Xpert assays of 95.2% (59/62) and 99.2% (238/240), respectively. The PPA and NPA between the Aries and BD Max assays were 91.8% (56/61) and 96.6% (230/238), respectively. Invalid result rates were determined to be 2.6% for the BD Max assay, 1.0% for the Aries assay, and 0% for the Xpert assay. Hands-on time (HoT) and total turnaround time (TAT) varied considerably depending on the sample number and instrument throughput. The HoT ranged from 1.2 to 3.5 min per sample, and the TAT was 1 to 2.3 h. Overall, the results demonstrated that the Aries assay is a rapid and sensitive method for the diagnosis of CDI in clinical laboratories.

Multicenter Clinical Evaluation of the Luminex Aries Flu A/B & RSV Assay for Pediatric and Adult Respiratory Tract Specimens.

Influenza A and B viruses and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) are three common viruses implicated in seasonal respiratory tract infections and are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in adults and children worldwide. In recent years, an increasing number of commercial molecular tests have become available to diagnose respiratory viral infections. The Luminex Aries Flu A/B & RSV assay is a fully automated sample-to-answer molecular diagnostic assay for the detection of influenza A, influenza B, and RSV. The clinical performance of the Aries Flu A/B & RSV assay was prospectively evaluated in comparison to that of the Luminex xTAG respiratory viral panel (RVP) at four North American clinical institutions over a 2-year period. Of the 2,479 eligible nasopharyngeal swab specimens included in the prospective study, 2,371 gave concordant results between the assays. One hundred eight specimens generated results that were discordant with those from the xTAG RVP and were further analyzed by bidirectional sequencing. Final clinical sensitivity values of the Aries Flu A/B & RSV assay were 98.1% for influenza A virus, 98.0% for influenza B virus, and 97.7% for RSV. Final clinical specificities for all three pathogens ranged from 98.6% to 99.8%. Due to the low prevalence of influenza B, an additional 40 banked influenza B-positive specimens were tested at the participating clinical laboratories and were all accurately detected by the Aries Flu A/B & RSV assay. This study demonstrates that the Aries Flu A/B & RSV assay is a suitable method for rapid and accurate identification of these causative pathogens in respiratory infections.

Assessment of Reproducibility of Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry for Bacterial and Yeast Identification.

Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry (MS) has revolutionized the identification of clinical bacterial and yeast isolates. However, data describing the reproducibility of MALDI-TOF MS for microbial identification are scarce. In this study, we show that MALDI-TOF MS-based microbial identification is highly reproducible and can tolerate numerous variables, including differences in testing environments, instruments, operators, reagent lots, and sample positioning patterns. Finally, we reveal that samples of bacterial and yeast isolates prepared for MALDI-TOF MS identification can be repeatedly analyzed without compromising organism identification.

Multi-center evaluation of the adenovirus R-gene US assay for the detection of adenovirus in respiratory samples.

BACKGROUND: Adenoviruses (AdV) cause a variety of upper and lower respiratory tract infections, with the potential for severe outcomes, especially in persons with immune suppression or other underlying diseases. The ADENOVIRUS US R-gene (AdV R-gene, Argene/bioMérieux) is a FDA cleared real-time PCR assay that utilizes primers and fluorescent probes that target a conserved region of the hexon gene and an internal control DNA. OBJECTIVES: This prospective multi-center study evaluated the clinical performance of AdV R-gene for AdV detection in respiratory specimens from symptomatic patients of all ages. STUDY DESIGN: Nucleic acids from nasopharyngeal washes/aspirates (NPW/A; n=393) and NP flocked swabs (NPS, Copan) (n=1183) were extracted using NucliSENS easyMAG (bioMérieux) and AdV R-gene PCR was performed using the SmartCycler (Cepheid). AdV R-gene results were compared to R-Mix culture (Quidel/Diagnostic Hybrids). For a subset of samples (n=946) AdV R-gene and R-Mix results were also compared to A549 cell culture. RESULTS: In first intention analysis for NPS the AdV R-gene positive percent agreement (PPA), and negative percent agreement (NPA) were 91.7% and 96.2%, respectively, and for NPW/A were 100% and 94.4%, respectively, compared to R-Mix culture. In second intention analysis, discordant samples only were tested with an AdV real-time PCR assay (Viracor-IBT Labs) and amplicon sequencing. For NPS, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for AdV R-gene were 98.9%, 100%, 100%, and 99.9%, respectively and for R-Mix culture were 51.7%, 99.7%, 93.8%, and 96.3%, respectively. For NPW/A, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for AdV R-gene were 100%, 99.7%, 97.6%, and 100%, respectively, and for R-Mix culture were 52.5%, 100%, 100%, and 94.9%, respectively. Overall, AdV was detected by AdV R-gene and R-Mix in 7.4% and 4.1% NPS, respectively, and in 10.7% and 5.3% NPW/A, respectively. Children 5yr and younger had the highest rates of AdV infections. In a subset of specimens (n=946) the sensitivity of AdV R-gene, R-Mix, and A549 cell culture were 95.0%, 55.4% and 66.3%. CONCLUSIONS: AdV R-gene is sensitive and specific for the detection of AdV in NPW/A and NPS samples. AdV R-gene is simple to use and provides a rapid time to results (within 2.5-3h).

Multicenter validation of the VITEK MS v2.0 MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry system for the identification of fastidious gram-negative bacteria.

The VITEK MS v2.0 MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry system's performance in identifying fastidious gram-negative bacteria was evaluated in a multicenter study. Compared with the reference method (DNA sequencing), the VITEK MS system provided an accurate, species-level identification for 96% of 226 isolates; an additional 1% were accurately identified to the genus level.

Detection and species identification of malaria parasites by isothermal tHDA amplification directly from human blood without sample preparation.

We report the clinical and analytical performance of an isothermal thermophilic helicase-dependent amplification assay for blood Plasmodium parasite detection and species-level identification. The assay amplifies the 18S rRNA gene fragment of all Plasmodium species and uses a species-specific probe and a pan-malarial probe to definitively identify Plasmodium falciparum from other infectious Plasmodium species. Amplicon-probe hybridization products are detected with a disposable dipstick enclosed in a cassette. With a pan-malarial-positive and P. falciparum-negative result, an additional test is performed to detect if the pan-malarial-positive band was the result of the presence of Plasmodium vivax. The assay uses only 2 µL of human whole blood directly for a 50-µL amplification reaction, without any pre-amplification processing. The clinical performance of the assay was validated using 88 samples from New York patients suspected of malaria or babesiosis. The overall sensitivity of the assay was 96.6% (95% CI, 87.3% to 99.4%), and the specificity was 100% (95% CI, 85.4% to 100%), compared with gold standard microscopy and a laboratory-developed molecular assay, respectively. The analytical sensitivity was 50 copies of DNA per assay or 200 parasites per microliter of blood, and the assay can detect samples with parasitemia levels <1%. This novel molecular diagnostic assay requires minimal laboratory instrumentation and uses un-processed blood as input; it can be readily performed in the field.

Multicenter evaluation of the Vitek MS matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry system for identification of Gram-positive aerobic bacteria.

Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF) is gaining momentum as a tool for bacterial identification in the clinical microbiology laboratory. Compared with conventional methods, this technology can more readily and conveniently identify a wide range of organisms. Here, we report the findings from a multicenter study to evaluate the Vitek MS v2.0 system (bioMérieux, Inc.) for the identification of aerobic Gram-positive bacteria. A total of 1,146 unique isolates, representing 13 genera and 42 species, were analyzed, and results were compared to those obtained by nucleic acid sequence-based identification as the reference method. For 1,063 of 1,146 isolates (92.8%), the Vitek MS provided a single identification that was accurate to the species level. For an additional 31 isolates (2.7%), multiple possible identifications were provided, all correct at the genus level. Mixed-genus or single-choice incorrect identifications were provided for 18 isolates (1.6%). Although no identification was obtained for 33 isolates (2.9%), there was no specific bacterial species for which the Vitek MS consistently failed to provide identification. In a subset of 463 isolates representing commonly encountered important pathogens, 95% were accurately identified to the species level and there were no misidentifications. Also, in all but one instance, the Vitek MS correctly differentiated Streptococcus pneumoniae from other viridans group streptococci. The findings demonstrate that the Vitek MS system is highly accurate for the identification of Gram-positive aerobic bacteria in the clinical laboratory setting.

Multicenter study evaluating the Vitek MS system for identification of medically important yeasts.

The optimal management of fungal infections is correlated with timely organism identification. Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry (MS) is revolutionizing the identification of yeasts isolated from clinical specimens. We present a multicenter study assessing the performance of the Vitek MS system (bioMérieux) in identifying medically important yeasts. A collection of 852 isolates was tested, including 20 Candida species (626 isolates, including 58 C. albicans, 62 C. glabrata, and 53 C. krusei isolates), 35 Cryptococcus neoformans isolates, and 191 other clinically relevant yeast isolates; in total, 31 different species were evaluated. Isolates were directly applied to a target plate, followed by a formic acid overlay. Mass spectra were acquired using the Vitek MS system and were analyzed using the Vitek MS v2.0 database. The gold standard for identification was sequence analysis of the D2 region of the 26S rRNA gene. In total, 823 isolates (96.6%) were identified to the genus level and 819 isolates (96.1%) were identified to the species level. Twenty-four isolates (2.8%) were not identified, and five isolates (0.6%) were misidentified. Misidentified isolates included one isolate of C. albicans (n = 58) identified as Candida dubliniensis, one isolate of Candida parapsilosis (n = 73) identified as Candida pelliculosa, and three isolates of Geotrichum klebahnii (n = 6) identified as Geotrichum candidum. The identification of clinically relevant yeasts using MS is superior to the phenotypic identification systems currently employed in clinical microbiology laboratories.

Evaluation of multiple test methods for the detection of the novel 2009 influenza A (H1N1) during the New York City outbreak.

BACKGROUND: In response to the novel influenza A H1N1 outbreak in the NY City area, 6090 patient samples were submitted over a 5-week period for a total of 14,114 viral diagnostic tests, including rapid antigen, direct immunofluorescence (DFA), viral culture and PCR. Little was known about the performance of the assays for the detection of novel H1N1 in the background of seasonal H1N1, H3N2 and other circulating respiratory viruses. In addition, subtyping influenza A became critical for the identification of high risk and/or hospitalized patients with novel H1N1 infection and for monitoring the spread of the outbreak. STUDY DESIGN: This study analyzed the performances of the BinaxNOW Influenza A&B test (BinaxNOW), the 3M Rapid Detection Flu A+B test (3MA+B), direct immunofluorescence, R-Mix culture and the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Virus Panel (RVP) for the detection of seasonal influenza, novel H1N1 and other respiratory viruses. RVP was also evaluated for its ability to differentiate seasonal H1N1, H3N2 and novel H1N1. RESULTS: The sensitivities, specificities, PPVs and NPVs for the detection of novel H1N1, determined by comparing all four-test methods, were: rapid antigen: 17.8%, 93.6%, 77.4%, 47.9%; DFA: 46.7%, 94.5%, 91.3%, 58.9%; R-Mix culture: 88.9%, 100%, 100%, 87.9%; RVP: 97.8%, 100%, 100%, 97.3%. The individual sensitivities of BinaxNOW and 3MA+B as compared to R-Mix culture for the detection of novel H1N1 were 9.6% and 40%, respectively. All unsubtypeable influenza A specimens identified by RVP and tested with the CDC novel H1N1 specific RT-PCR assay were confirmed to be novel H1N1. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid antigen tests, DFA, R-Mix culture and the xTAG RVP test all detected the novel H1N1 strain, but with highly varied sensitivity. The RVP test provided the best diagnostic option as RVP demonstrated superior sensitivity for the detection of all influenza strains, including the novel H1N1, provided accurate influenza A subtyping and identified a significant number of additional respiratory pathogens.

Clinical performance of the 3M Rapid Detection Flu A+B Test compared to R-Mix culture, DFA and BinaxNOW Influenza A&B Test.

BACKGROUND: The rapid diagnosis of influenza allows for prompt patient management and the initiation of appropriate infection control measures to reduce spread in healthcare settings. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical performance of the 3M Rapid Detection Flu A+B Test (3MA+B) as compared to R-Mix cell culture, direct immunofluorescence assay (DFA) and the BinaxNOW A&B Influenza Test (BinaxNOW). STUDY DESIGN: Five hundred fresh respiratory samples, collected from patients aged 5 days to 99 years with respiratory symptoms, were tested by R-Mix culture, DFA, 3MA+B and BinaxNOW. Analytical sensitivity of 3MA+B was compared to BinaxNOW using replicates of serially diluted clinical samples positive for influenza A or B. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for the detection of influenza A and B, respectively, were for R-Mix (96.9%, 100%, 100%, 99.3%; 98.1%, 100%, 100%, 99.8%), DFA (80.4%, 99.2%, 96.1%, 95.3%; 74%, 100%, 100%, 97%), 3MA+B (70.1%, 99.8%, 98.6%, 93%; 86.5%, 98.7%, 88.2%, 98.4%) and BinaxNOW (46.4%, 100%, 100%, 88.6%; 34.6%, 100%, 100%, 93%). R-Mix, DFA and 3MA+B were significantly (P

Clinical evaluation of NucliSENS magnetic extraction and NucliSENS analyte-specific reagents for real-time detection of human metapneumovirus in pediatric respiratory specimens.

In this study, we evaluated the NucliSENS miniMAG (MM) and easyMAG (EM) nucleic acid extraction platforms (bioMérieux, Durham, NC) in combination with the NucliSENS EasyQ basic kit and analyte-specific reagents (ASRs) (bioMérieux) for the detection of human metapneumovirus (hMPV) in respiratory samples. Total nucleic acids from pediatric clinical samples (n = 653) and an hMPV-specific inhibition control (h-IC) were coextracted using the MM and/or the EM. Nucleic acid sequence-based amplification and real-time molecular beacon detection of hMPV were performed using a NucliSENS EasyQ analyzer (bioMérieux). Positive results were confirmed using an in-house-validated reverse transcriptase PCR ASR-based assay. The inclusion of the h-IC monitored the entire process, including the efficiency of nucleic acid extraction, amplification, and detection. The percentages of samples with inhibited amplification of the h-IC after initial NA extraction by EM and MM were 1.88% and 3.17%, respectively. After reprocessing of a new aliquot, the final h-IC inhibition rates were 0% (EM) and 1.06% (MM). The limit of detection of the assay was between 2 (EM extraction) and 10 (MM extraction) RNA copies/reaction, and specificity was 100% when testing viral respiratory isolates and clinical samples. hMPV was detected in 5.6% of pediatric samples tested and was also detected in three coinfections with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). hMPV was the second most frequently detected respiratory virus in children of 0 to 2 years of age, after RSV. In summary, NucliSENS extraction and ASRs provided a sensitive and specific method for the detection of hMPV in respiratory samples.