Dataset Information

Comparison of Luminex NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel and xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel FAST Version 2 for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses.

ABSTRACT: Owing to advancements in molecular diagnostics, recent years have seen an increasing number of laboratories adopting respiratory viral panels to detect respiratory pathogens. In December 2015, the NxTAG respiratory pathogen panel (NxTAG RPP) was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. We compared the clinical performance of this new assay with that of the xTAG respiratory viral panel (xTAG RVP) FAST v2 using 142 clinical samples and 12 external quality assessment samples. Discordant results were resolved by using a laboratory-developed respiratory viral panel. The NxTAG RPP achieved 100% concordant negative results and 86.6% concordant positive results. It detected one coronavirus 229E and eight influenza A/H3N2 viruses that were missed by the xTAG RVP FAST v2. On the other hand, the NxTAG RPP missed one enterovirus/rhinovirus and one metapneumovirus that were detected by FAST v2. Both panels correctly identified all the pathogens in the 12 external quality assessment samples. Overall, the NxTAG RPP demonstrated good diagnostic performance. Of note, it was better able to subtype the influenza A/H3N2 viruses compared with the xTAG RVP FAST v2.

SUBMITTER: Lee CK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5339100 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Luminex NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel and xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel FAST Version 2 for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses.

Lee Chun Kiat CK Lee Hong Kai HK Ng Christopher Wei Siong CW Chiu Lily L Tang Julian Wei Tze JW Loh Tze Ping TP Koay Evelyn Siew Chuan ES

Annals of laboratory medicine 20170501 3

Owing to advancements in molecular diagnostics, recent years have seen an increasing number of laboratories adopting respiratory viral panels to detect respiratory pathogens. In December 2015, the NxTAG respiratory pathogen panel (NxTAG RPP) was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. We compared the clinical performance of this new assay with that of the xTAG respiratory viral panel (xTAG RVP) FAST v2 using 142 clinical samples and 12 external quality assessment samples. Dis ...[more]

PMID: 28224774

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: A broad spectrum of pathogens is causative for respiratory tract infections, but symptoms are mostly similar. Therefore, the identification of the causative viruses and bacteria is only feasible using multiplex PCR or several monoplex PCR tests in parallel. METHODS: The analytical sensitivity of three multiplex PCR assays, RespiFinder-19, RespiFinder-SMART-22 and xTAG-Respiratory-Virus-Panel-Fast-Assay (RVP), were compared to monoplex real-time PCR with quantified standardized control material. All assays include the most common respiratory pathogens. RESULTS: To compare the analytical sensitivity of the multiplex assays, samples were inoculated with 13 different quantified viruses in the range of 10(1) to 10(5) copies/ml. Concordant results were received for rhinovirus, whereas the RVP detected influenzavirus, RSV and hMPV more frequently in low concentrations. The RespiFinder-19 and the RespiFinder-SMART-22 showed a higher analytical sensitivity for adenoviruses and coronaviruses, whereas the RVP was incapable to detect adenovirus and coronavirus in concentrations of 10(4) copies/ml. The RespiFinder-19 and RespiFinder-SMART-22A did not detect influenzaviruses (104 copies/ml) and RSV (10(3) copies/ml). The detection of all 13 viruses in one sample was only achieved using monoplex PCR. To analyze possible competitive amplification reactions between the different viruses, samples were further inoculated with only 4 different viruses in one sample. Compared to the detection of 13 viruses in parallel, only a few differences were found.The incidence of respiratory viruses was compared in tracheal secretion (TS) samples (n = 100) of mechanically ventilated patients in winter (n = 50) and summer (n = 50). In winter, respiratory viruses were detected in 32 TS samples (64%) by RespiFinder-19, whereas the detection rate with RVP was only 22%. The most frequent viruses were adenovirus (32%) and PIV-2 (20%). Multiple infections were detected in 16 TS samples (32%) by RespiFinder-19. Fewer infections were found in summer (RespiFinder-19: 20%; RVP: 6%). All positive results were verified using monoplex PCR. CONCLUSIONS: Multiplex PCR tests have a broad spectrum of pathogens to test at a time. Analysis of multiple inoculated samples revealed a different focus of the detected virus types by the three assays. Analysis of clinical samples showed a high concordance of detected viruses by the RespiFinder-19 compared to monoplex tests.

Project description:Acute diarrheal disease (ADD) can be caused by a range of pathogens, including bacteria, viruses, and parasites. Conventional diagnostic methods, such as culture, microscopy, biochemical assays, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), are laborious and time-consuming and lack sensitivity. Combined, the array of tests performed on a single specimen can increase the turnaround time (TAT) significantly. We validated a 19plex laboratory-developed gastrointestinal pathogen panel (GPP) using Luminex xTAG analyte-specific reagents (ASRs) to simultaneously screen directly in fecal specimens for diarrhea-causing pathogens, including bacteria (Campylobacter jejuni, Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli [ETEC], Shiga toxin-producing E. coli [STEC], E. coli O157:H7, Vibrio cholerae, Yersinia enterocolitica, and toxigenic Clostridium difficile), parasites (Giardia lamblia, Cryptosporidium spp., and Entamoeba histolytica), and viruses (norovirus GI and GII, adenovirus 40/41, and rotavirus A). Performance characteristics of GPP ASRs were determined using 48 reference isolates and 254 clinical specimens. Stool specimens from individuals with diarrhea were tested for pathogens using conventional and molecular methods. Using the predictive methods as standards, the sensitivities of the GPP ASRs were 100% for adenovirus 40/41, norovirus, rotavirus A, Vibrio cholerae, Yersinia enterocolitica, Entamoeba histolytica, Cryptosporidium spp., and E. coli O157:H7; 95% for Giardia lamblia; 94% for ETEC and STEC; 93% for Shigella spp.; 92% for Salmonella spp.; 91% for C. difficile A/B toxins; and 90% for Campylobacter jejuni. The overall comparative performance of the GPP ASRs with conventional methods in clinical samples was 94.5% (range, 90% to 97%), with 99% (99.0% to 99.9%) specificity. Implementation of the GPP ASRs enables our public health laboratory to offer highly sensitive and specific screening and identification of the major ADD-causing pathogens.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Luminex NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel and xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel FAST Version 2 for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses.

Publications

Comparison of Luminex NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel and xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel FAST Version 2 for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure