Clinical Evaluation of the BIOFIRE SPOTFIRE Respiratory Panel.

The BIOFIRE SPOTFIRE Respiratory (R) Panel is a novel, in vitro diagnostic PCR assay with 15 pathogen targets. The runtime is about 15 min which is the shortest among similar panels in the market. We evaluated the performance of the SPOTFIRE R Panel with 151 specimens, including 133 collected from the upper respiratory tract (URT), 13 from the lower respiratory tract (LRT) and 5 external quality assessment program (EQAP) samples. The respiratory specimens were enrolled throughout the first two post-COVID-19 influenza seasons in Hong Kong (March to December 2023). For URT specimens, full concordance was observed between the SPOTFIRE R Panel and the standard-of-care FilmArray Respiratory 2.1 plus Panel (RP2.1plus) for 109 specimens (109/133, 81.95%). After discrepant analysis, the SPOTFIRE R Panel identified more pathogens than the RP2.1plus in 15 specimens and vice versa in 3 specimens. The per-target negative and positive percentage agreement (NPA and PPA) were 92.86-100% except the PPA of adenovirus (88.24%). For LRT and EQAP samples, all results were fully concordant. To conclude, the performance of the SPOTFIRE R Panel was comparable to the RP2.1plus.

The Seasonality of Respiratory Viruses in a Hong Kong Hospital, 2014-2023.

We reviewed the multiplex PCR results of 20,127 respiratory specimens tested in a hospital setting from January 2014 to April 2023. The seasonal oscillation patterns of 17 respiratory viruses were studied. Compared with 2014-2019, a prominent drop in PCR positivity (from 64.46-69.21% to 17.29-29.89%, p < 0.001) and virus diversity was observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, with predominance of rhinovirus/enterovirus, sporadic spikes of parainfluenza viruses 3 and 4, respiratory syncytial virus and SARS-CoV-2, and rare detection of influenza viruses, metapneumovirus, adenovirus and coronaviruses. The suppressed viruses appeared to regain activity from the fourth quarter of 2022 when pandemic interventions had been gradually relaxed in Hong Kong. With the co-circulation of SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal respiratory viruses, surveillance of their activity and an in-depth understanding of the clinical outcomes will provide valuable insights for improved public health measures and reducing disease burden.

Olfactory Dysfunction in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: Observational Cohort Study and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Olfactory dysfunction (OD) has been reported in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there are knowledge gaps about the severity, prevalence, etiology, and duration of OD in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Olfactory function was assessed in all participants using questionnaires and the butanol threshold test (BTT). Patients with COVID-19 and abnormal olfaction were further evaluated using the smell identification test (SIT), sinus imaging, and nasoendoscopy. Selected patients received nasal biopsies. Systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed items from January 1, 2020 to April 23, 2020 were searched. Studies that reported clinical data on olfactory disturbances in COVID-19 patients were analyzed. RESULTS: We included 18 COVID-19 patients and 18 controls. Among COVID-19 patients, 12 of 18 (67%) reported olfactory symptoms and OD was confirmed in 6 patients by BTT and SIT. Olfactory dysfunction was the only symptom in 2 patients. Mean BTT score of patients was worse than controls (P = .004, difference in means = 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-2.9). Sinusitis and olfactory cleft obstruction were absent in most patients. Immunohistochemical analysis of nasal biopsy revealed the presence of infiltrative CD68+ macrophages harboring severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen in the stroma. Olfactory dysfunction persisted in 2 patients despite clinical recovery. Systematic review showed that the prevalence of olfactory disturbances in COVID-19 ranged from 5% to 98%. Most studies did not assess olfaction quantitatively. CONCLUSIONS: Olfactory dysfunction is common in COVID-19 and may be the only symptom. Coronavirus disease 2019-related OD can be severe and prolonged. Mucosal infiltration by CD68+ macrophages expressing SARS-CoV-2 viral antigen may contribute to COVID-19-related OD.

An economical Nanopore sequencing assay for human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has been employed by several European countries to augment cytology-based cervical screening programs. A number of research groups have demonstrated potential utility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for HPV genotyping, with comparable performance and broader detection spectrum than current gold standards. Nevertheless, most of these NGS platforms may not be the best choice for medium sample throughput and laboratories with less resources and space. In light of this, we developed a Nanopore sequencing assay for HPV genotyping and compared its performance with cobas HPV Test and Roche Linear Array HPV Genotyping Test (LA). METHODS: Two hundred and one cervicovaginal swabs were routinely tested for Papanicolaou smear, cobas HPV Test and LA. Residual DNA was used for Nanopore protocol after routine testing. Briefly, HPV L1 region was amplified using PGMY and MGP primers, and PCR-positive specimens were sequenced on MinION flow cells (R9.4.1). Data generated in first 2 h were aligned with reference sequences from Papillomavirus Episteme database for genotyping. RESULTS: Nanopore detected 96 HPV-positive (47.76%) and 95 HPV-negative (47.26%) specimens, with 10 lacking ß-globin band and not further analyzed (4.98%). Substantial agreement was achieved with cobas HPV Test and LA (κ: 0.83-0.93). In particular, Nanopore appeared to be more sensitive than cobas HPV Test for HPV 52 (n = 7). For LA, Nanopore revealed higher concordance for high-risk (κ: 0.93) than non-high risk types (κ: 0.83), and with similar high-risk positivity in each cytology grading. Nanopore also provided better resolution for HPV 52 in 3 specimens co-infected with HPV 33 or 58, and for HPV 87 which was identified as HPV 84 by LA. Interestingly, Nanopore identified 5 additional HPV types, with an unexpected high incidence of HPV 90 (n = 12) which was reported in North America and Belgium but not in Hong Kong. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a Nanopore workflow for HPV genotyping which was economical (about USD 50.77 per patient specimen for 24-plex runs), and with comparable or better performance than 2 reference methods in the market. Future prospective study with larger sample size is warranted to further evaluate test performance and streamline the protocol.

Potential utility of targeted Nanopore sequencing for improving etiologic diagnosis of bacterial and fungal respiratory infection.

BACKGROUND: Diversified etiology of lower respiratory tract infection renders diagnosis challenging. The mainstay microbial culture is time-consuming and constrained by variable growth requirements. In this study, we explored the use of Nanopore sequencing as a supplementary tool to alleviate this diagnostic bottleneck. METHODS: We developed a targeted Nanopore method based on amplification of bacterial 16S rRNA gene and fungal internal transcribed spacer region. The performance was compared with routine infectious disease workups on 43 respiratory specimens. RESULTS: Nanopore successfully identified majority of microbes (47/54, 87.04%) and 7 possible pathogens not detected by routine workups, which were attributable to the content of microbiological investigations (n = 5) and negative culture (n = 2). The average sequencing time for first target reads was 7 min (1-43 min) plus 5 h of pre-sequencing preparation. CONCLUSIONS: The Nanopore method described here was rapid, economical and hypothesis-free, which might provide valuable hints to further microbiological follow-up for opportunistic pathogens missed or not detectable by conventional tests.