Dataset Information

Timely diagnosis of respiratory tract infections: evaluation of the performance of the Respifinder assay compared to the xTAG respiratory viral panel assay.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Respiratory tract infections are the most common cause of hospitalization in infants and young children and are typically caused by viral or, less commonly, bacterial pathogens. Existing non-molecular diagnostic methods have several drawbacks such as limited sensitivity, long turn-a-round time and limited number of pathogens that can be detected.

Objectives

Nucleic acid amplification methods can increase sensitivity and enable the initiation of appropriate interventions without delay. Broad-spectrum detection and identification circumvent the use of individual diagnostic DNA or RNA based assays. At present, several commercial assays are available for broad-spectrum detection.

Study design

We compared the performance of the xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel (RVP) (Luminex Molecular Diagnostics, Toronto, Canada) with that of the Respifinder (Pathofinder, Maastricht, Netherlands) for 9 external quality assurance (EQA) panels (QCMD, Scotland) consisting of a total of 106 EQA samples.

Results

Both the RVP and the Respifinder assay have an excellent specificity. Sensitivity was 33% and 78% for the RVP and the Respifinder assay, respectively. For both assays, sensitivity was low for weak positive samples.

Discussion

The results of our study seem to indicate a better sensitivity for the Respifinder. Analysis of patient samples is necessary to evaluate the clinical performance.

SUBMITTER: Raymaekers M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7185546 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Timely diagnosis of respiratory tract infections: evaluation of the performance of the Respifinder assay compared to the xTAG respiratory viral panel assay.

Raymaekers M M de Rijke B B Pauli I I Van den Abeele A-M AM Cartuyvels R R

Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology 20110916 4

<h4>Background</h4>Respiratory tract infections are the most common cause of hospitalization in infants and young children and are typically caused by viral or, less commonly, bacterial pathogens. Existing non-molecular diagnostic methods have several drawbacks such as limited sensitivity, long turn-a-round time and limited number of pathogens that can be detected.<h4>Objectives</h4>Nucleic acid amplification methods can increase sensitivity and enable the initiation of appropriate interventions ...[more]

PMID: 21925937

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.

Dataset Information

Timely diagnosis of respiratory tract infections: evaluation of the performance of the Respifinder assay compared to the xTAG respiratory viral panel assay.

Background

Objectives

Study design

Results

Discussion

Publications

Timely diagnosis of respiratory tract infections: evaluation of the performance of the Respifinder assay compared to the xTAG respiratory viral panel assay.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets