ABSTRACT
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.