Performance Evaluation of Allplex Respiratory Panels 1, 2, and 3 for Detection of Respiratory Viruses and Influenza A Virus Subtypes.

The Allplex respiratory panels 1, 2, and 3 (Allplex) comprise a one-step real-time reverse transcription-PCR assay for the detection of respiratory viruses (RVs) and influenza A subtypes based on multiple detection temperature (MuDT) technology. The performance of the Allplex assay was compared with those of the AdvanSure RV real-time PCR kit (AdvanSure) and the PowerChek pandemic H1N1/H3N2/H5N1 real-time PCR kit (PowerChek) using 417 clinical respiratory specimens. In comparison with the AdvanSure assay for RV detection by each virus, the ranges of positive percent agreement, negative percent agreement, and kappa values with the Allplex assay were 82.8 to 100%, 95.5 to 100%, and 0.85 to 1.00, respectively. For influenza A virus (INF A) subtyping, the kappa values between the Allplex and PowerChek assays were 0.67 and 1.00 for the INF A H1N1-pdm09 and H3 subtypes, respectively. Uniplex PCR and sequencing for samples with discrepant results demonstrated that the majority of results were concordant with those from the Allplex assay. When testing 24 samples, the turnaround and hands-on time required to perform the Allplex assay were 4 h 15 min and 15 min, respectively. In conclusion, the Allplex assay produced results comparable to those from the AdvanSure and PowerChek assays.

Comparison of the genedia MTB detection kit and the cobas TaqMan MTB assay for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in respiratory specimens.

The performance of the Genedia MTB detection kit was compared with that of the Cobas TaqMan MTB test using respiratory specimens. The Genedia and Cobas assays showed comparable sensitivities (81.8% and 78.8%, respectively) and specificities (99.8% and 99.5%, respectively), while the Genedia assay produced fewer invalid results and required less turnaround time and labor.

Evaluation of performance of the Real-Q NTM-ID kit for rapid identification of eight nontuberculous mycobacterial species.

We evaluated a multiplex real-time PCR and melting curve analysis assay (Real-Q NTM-ID kit; Biosewoom, Seoul, South Korea) for the identification of eight common nontuberculous mycobacterial species, using 30 type strains and 230 consecutive clinical isolates. The concordance rate of this assay with multigene sequence-based typing was 97.0% (223/230 isolates).

Performance Evaluation of the PowerChek MERS (upE & ORF1a) Real-Time PCR Kit for the Detection of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus RNA.

BACKGROUND: Molecular detection of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) using real-time reverse transcription (rRT)-PCR assays is the method of choice for diagnosis of MERS. We evaluated the performance of the PowerChek MERS (upE & ORF1a) real-time PCR Kit (PowerChek MERS assay; Kogene Biotech, Korea) a one-step rRT-PCR assay for the qualitative detection of MERS-CoV. METHODS: We evaluated PowerChek MERS assay performance in comparison with nested RT-PCR and sequencing of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) and N genes. To evaluate diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, 100 clinical specimens (50 positive and 50 negative for MERS-CoV) were simultaneously tested by using the PowerChek MERS and sequencing assays. Assay performance, including limit of detection and precision, was evaluated in vitro by using MERS-CoV RNA transcripts. Analytical specificity was evaluated with a diverse collection of 16 respiratory virus-positive clinical specimens and 14 respiratory bacterial isolates. RESULTS: The 95% limits of detection of the PowerChek MERS assay for the upE and the open rading frame (ORF)1a were 16.2 copies/µL and 8.2 copies/µL, respectively. No cross-reactivity was observed. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the PowerChek MERS assay were both 100% (95% confidence interval, 91.1-100%). CONCLUSIONS: The PowerChek MERS assay is a straightforward and accurate assay for detecting MERS-CoV RNA. The assay will be a useful tool for the rapid diagnosis of MERS and could prove especially important for MERS outbreak control.

Comparative evaluation of the AdvanSure Mycobacteria GenoBlot assay and the GenoType Mycobacterium CM/AS assay for the identification of non-tuberculous mycobacteria.

In this study, to assess the performance of the AdvanSure Mycobacteria GenoBlot assay (AdvanSure assay), we compared its performance with that of the GenoType Mycobacterium CM/AS assay (GenoType assay) for the identification of non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM). Twenty-four reference strains and 103 consecutive clinical NTM isolates were analysed. The accuracy rates for the 24 reference strains were 87.5 and 95.8 % for the AdvanSure and GenoType assays, respectively. For the 103 clinical isolates, a 91.3 % (94/103) concordance rate was observed between the two assays. The majority (7/9) of discrepancies were isolates identified as Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) by only the AdvanSure assay. All of these isolates except one were confirmed as MAC by sequence-based typing. The AdvanSure assay showed comparable performance to the GenoType assay and can be useful as a routine method for NTM identification in the clinical setting, especially where MAC is the main cause of NTM infection.

Comparison of the AdvanSure™ real-time RT-PCR and Seeplex(®) RV12 ACE assay for the detection of respiratory viruses.

The AdvanSure™ RV real-time PCR kit (AdvanSure; LG Life Sciences, Korea) is based on multiplex real-time PCR and can simultaneously detect 14 respiratory viruses. We compared the performance of the AdvanSure assay with the Seeplex RV 12 ACE detection kit (Seeplex; Seegene, Seoul, South Korea), a multiplex end-point PCR assay. A total of 454 consecutive respiratory specimens were tested with both AdvanSure and Seeplex assays; AdvanSure detected 153 (33.7%) positive cases and Seeplex detected 145 (31.9%) positive cases. The positive percent agreement, negative percent agreement, and kappa value for the two assays were 87.2% (95% CI, 80.3-92.1), 91.1% (95% CI, 87.2-93.9), and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.83), respectively. Compared with the Seeplex assay, the AdvanSure assay had a shorter turnaround time (3h vs. 8h) and a shorter hands-on time (<1h vs 2h). In conclusion, the AdvanSure assay demonstrated comparable performance to the Seeplex assay.

Comparison of the Anyplex(TM) II RV16 and Seeplex(®) RV12 ACE assays for the detection of respiratory viruses.

The Anyplex(TM) II RV16 detection kit (RV16; Seegene, Seoul, South Korea) is a multiplex real-time PCR assay based on tagging oligonucleotide cleavage extension. In this prospective study, we evaluated the RV16 assay by comparing with the Seeplex(®) RV12 ACE detection kit (RV12; Seegene), a multiplex end-point PCR kit. A total of 365 consecutive respiratory specimens were tested with both RV16 and RV12 assays in parallel and detected 140 (38.4%) and 89 (24.4%) positive cases, respectively. The positive percent agreement, negative percent agreement, and kappa values for the 2 assays were 95.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.4-98.3%), 80.4% (95% CI, 75.3-84.6%), and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.56-0.72), respectively. The monoplex PCR and sequencing for the samples with discrepant results revealed that majority of the results were concordant with the results from RV16 assays. In conclusion, the RV16 assay produces results comparable to the RV12 assay.