Clinical evaluation of the BioFire® Respiratory Panel 2.1 and detection of SARS-CoV-2.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Creager HM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7336953 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The highly contagious nature of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), requires rapid diagnostic tests to prevent the virus from spreading within hospitals and communities. Reverse transcription followed by the polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test is the gold standard for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections but is time-consuming, labor-intensive, and restricted to centralized laboratories. There is a growing need to develop and implement point-of-care and rapid tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection to address these limitations. We aimed to evaluate the performance of BioFire Film Array Respiratory Panel 2.1 (BioFire FA-RP2.1) for SARS-CoV-2 detection in a pediatric hospital setting. The BioFire FA-RP2.1 test provides rapid results and can identify several viral and bacterial infections in a single test. This prospective, cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study enrolled participants ranging from 0 to 18 years of age, seeking medical consultation for any reason, who had been in contact with individuals confirmed to have COVID-19 or managed at the hospital for medical or surgical reasons. We employed a systematic sampling technique to ensure a representative sample. The study included 339 participants with a median age of 5 years. The BioFire FA-RP2.1 test detected SARS-CoV-2 in 18.6% of cases, while the reference RT-PCR test in 14% of cases. The BioFire FA-RP2.1 sensitivity and specificity for SARS CoV-2 detection were 98% and 94%, respectively. The positive probability coefficient (LR+) was 18. The agreement between the two tests was 0.80. In addition, the BioFire FA-RP2.1 test detected coinfection with two viruses in 7,6% of cases. The BioFire FA-RP2.1 is a reliable solution to meet pediatric healthcare needs and improve prognosis in the post-pandemic era thanks to its friendly interface and rapid testing process.
| S-EPMC10553804 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The BioFire® COVID-19 Test and Respiratory Panel 2.1 (RP2.1) are rapid, fully automated assays for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in nasopharyngeal swabs. In the case of the RP2.1, an additional 21 viral and bacterial pathogens can be detected. Both tests have received emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration and Interim Order authorization from Health Canada for use in clinical laboratories. We evaluated the performance characteristics of these tests in comparison to a laboratory-developed real-time PCR assay targeting the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and E genes. A total of 78 tests were performed using the BioFire COVID-19 Test, including 30 clinical specimens and 48 tests in a limit of detection study; 57 tests were performed using the RP2.1 for evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 detection, including 30 clinical specimens and 27 tests for limit of detection. Results showed 100% concordance between the BioFire assays and the laboratory-developed test for all clinical samples tested, and acceptable performance of both BioFire assays at their stated limits of detection. Conclusively, the BioFire COVID-19 Test and RP2.1 are highly sensitive assays that can be effectively used in the clinical laboratory for rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing.
| S-EPMC7654322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the QIAstat-Dx® Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel (QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2), which is a closed, fully automated, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay that detects severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and 21 other pathogens that cause respiratory disease.MethodsNasopharyngeal swabs from patients with or suspected of having coronavirus disease 2019 were collected and tested at Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, France. Using the World Health Organisation-approved real-time-PCR assay developed by the Charité Institute of Virology as the reference, positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) were calculated.ResultsIn total, 189 negative and 88 positive samples were analyzed. QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 had an NPA of 90.48% (95% confidence interval (CI), 85.37%, 94.26%) and a PPA of 94.32% (95% CI, 87.24%, 98.13%). Co-infections were detected by QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 in 4/277 specimens. The methods exhibited comparable failure rates (23/307 [7.5%] vs. 6/298 [2.0%] for QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 and reference methods, respectively). The turnaround time was shorter for QIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 compared with the reference method (difference in mean -14:30 h [standard error, 0:03:23; 95% CI, -14:37, -14:24]; P < 0.001).ConclusionsQIAstat-SARS-CoV-2 shows good agreement with the reference assay, providing faster and accurate results for detecting SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC8064816 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multiplex nucleic acid amplification assays that simultaneously detect multiple respiratory pathogens in a single nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimen are widely used for rapid clinical diagnostics. We evaluated Allplex Respiratory Panel (RP) 1, 2, 3, and the BioFire FilmArray RP assay for detecting respiratory pathogens from NPS specimens. In all, 181 NPS specimens obtained from patients suspected of having respiratory infections during the non-influenza season (August-December 2019) were included. The Allplex RP 1, 2, and 3 detected 154 samples positive for respiratory viruses, whereas the BioFire FilmArray detected viruses in 98 samples. Co-infection with two or more viruses was detected in 41 and 17 NPS specimens by Allplex RP and the BioFire FilmArray RP, respectively. For adenoviruses, Allplex RP 1 detected 31 specimens, compared to 34 by the BioFire FilmArray. In all, 64 NPS specimens were positive for human enterovirus (HEV) and human rhinovirus (HRV) on the Allplex RP, in contrast to 39 HEV/HRV on the BioFire FilmArray. The parainfluenza virus (PIV-1-4) detection rate differed between the two systems. Most discrepant results were observed for NPS specimens with high cycle threshold values obtained by Allplex RP. This study showed concordant performance of the Allplex RP 1, 2, 3, and the BioFire FilmArray RP for the simultaneous detection of multiple respiratory viruses.
| S-EPMC8775103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe epidemiology of severe lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) is constantly changing. We aimed to describe it using the BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia plus (PNplus) Panel.MethodsIn a sub-study of the PROGRESS trial, sputum samples of 90 patients with sepsis and LRTI were retrospectively studied. The primary endpoint was the comparative detection rate of pathogens between conventional microbiology and PNplus Panel; secondary endpoints were microbiology and the association with the inflammatory host response.ResultsFifty-six patients with community-acquired pneumonia without risk factors for multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens and another 34 patients with risk factors for MDR were studied; median pneumonia severity index (PSI) was 113 (88-135). PNplus detection rate was 72.2% compared to 10% by conventional microbiology (p < 0.001); Streptococcus pneumoniae was the most common pathogen. PSI and procalcitonin were greater among patients with bacterial pathogens than viral pathogens. Median procalcitonin was 0.49 ng/ml and 0.18 ng/ml among patients with ≥ 105 and < 105 copies/ml of detected bacteria, respectively (p = 0.004). Resistance reached 14.4%.ConclusionPNplus detects severe pneumonia pathogens at a greater rate than conventional microbiology. High levels of inflammation accompany bacterial detection.Trial registrationPROGRESS, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03333304, 06/11/2017.
| S-EPMC8197784 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study compared standard of care testing (SOC) to BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia plus Panel (PNplus). PNplus detects 15 bacteria with semiquantitative log bin values, 7 antibiotic resistance markers, three atypical bacteria (AB), and eight viral classes directly from bronchoalveolar lavage-like specimens (BLS) and sputum-like specimens (SLS). Fifty-two laboratories from 13 European countries and Israel tested 1234 BLS and 1242 SLS with PNplus and SOC. Detection rates and number of pathogens/samples were compared for PNplus pathogens. PNplus bin values and SOC quantities were compared. Three thousand two hundred sixty-two bacteria in PNplus were detected by PNplus and/or SOC. SOC detected 57.1% compared to 95.8% for PNplus (p ≤ 0.0001). PNplus semiquantitative bin values were less than SOC, equal to SOC, or greater than SOC in 5.1%, 25.4%, and 69.6% of results, respectively. PNplus bin values were on average ≥ 1 log than SOC values (58.5% 1-2 logs; 11.0% 3-4 logs). PNplus identified 98.2% of MRSA and SOC 55.6%. SOC detected 73/103 AB (70.9%) and 134/631 viruses (21.2%). PNplus detected 93/103 AB (90.3%) and 618/631 viruses (97.9%) (p ≤ 0.0001). PNplus and SOC mean number of pathogens/samples were 1.99 and 1.44, respectively. All gram-negative resistance markers were detected. PNplus and SOC results were fully or partially concordant for 49.1% and 26.4% of specimens, respectively. PNplus was highly sensitive and detected more potential pneumonia pathogens than SOC. Semiquantification may assist in understanding pathogen significance. As PNplus generates results in approximately 1 h, PNplus has potential to direct antimicrobial therapy in near real time and improve antimicrobial stewardship and patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC7924818 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The FilmArray Respiratory Panel 2 (RP2) is a multiplex in vitro diagnostic test for the simultaneous and rapid (?45-min) detection of 22 pathogens directly from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. It contains updated (and in some instances redesigned) assays that improve upon the FilmArray Respiratory Panel (RP; version 1.7), with a faster run time. The organisms identified are adenovirus, coronavirus 229E, coronavirus HKU1, coronavirus NL63, coronavirus OC43, human metapneumovirus, human rhinovirus/enterovirus, influenza virus A, influenza virus A H1, influenza virus A H1-2009, influenza virus A H3, influenza virus B, parainfluenza virus 1, parainfluenza virus 2, parainfluenza virus 3, parainfluenza virus 4, respiratory syncytial virus, Bordetella pertussis, Chlamydia pneumoniae, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae Two new targets are included in the FilmArray RP2: Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Bordetella parapertussis This study provides data from a multicenter evaluation of 1,612 prospectively collected NPS samples, with performance compared to that of the FilmArray RP or PCR and sequencing. The overall percent agreement between the FilmArray RP2 and the comparator testing was 99.2%. The RP2 demonstrated a positive percent agreement of 91.7% or greater for detection of all but three analytes: coronavirus OC43, B. parapertussis, and B. pertussis The FilmArray RP2 also demonstrated a negative percent agreement of ?93.8% for all analytes. Of note, the adenovirus assay detects all genotypes, with a demonstrated increase in sensitivity. The FilmArray RP2 represents a significant improvement over the FilmArray RP, with a substantially shorter run time that could aid in the diagnosis of respiratory infections in a variety of clinical scenarios.
| S-EPMC5971546 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Respiratory infections are common reasons for hospital admission, and are associated with enormous economic burden due to significant morbidity and mortality. The wide spectrum of microbial agents underlying the pathology renders the diagnosis of respiratory infections challenging. Molecular diagnostics offer an advantage to the current serological and culture-based methods in terms of sensitivity, coverage, hands-on time, and time to results. OBJECTIVES:This study aimed to compare the clinical performance of three commercial kits for respiratory viral detection. STUDY DESIGN:The performance of FilmArray Respiratory Panel, AnyplexII RV16, and Argene was compared using clinical respiratory samples (n?=?224, comprising 189 nasopharyngeal swabs in Universal Transport Medium (UTM) and 35 endotracheal aspirates), based on common overlapping targets across the platforms. Influenza A "equivocal" and "no-subtype" samples by FilmArray were further compared to a laboratory-developed Influenza A/B test. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS:The overall performance of all three platforms appeared to be comparable with regards to sensitivities (95.8-97.9%) and specificities (96.1-98.0%), detection of coinfections, and distinguishment of influenza from non-influenza cases. "Equivocal" and "no-subtype" samples by FilmArray mostly represented weak Influenza A by laboratory-developed test. Lower respiratory tract samples had comparable final-run success-rates and discordant-rates as compared to UTM. Coronavirus HKU1, which was not targeted by AnyplexII RV16, were detected as OC43. The expected test volume would be the main determinant for the selection of platform. Among the platforms, the FilmArray is the most automated but is of the lowest-throughput and has the highest reagent cost.
| S-EPMC7185839 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesQualitative real-time polymerase chain reaction tests are not designed to provide quantitative or semiquantitative results because cycle threshold (Ct) values are not normalized to standardized controls of known concentration. The aim of this study was to characterize SARS-CoV-2 viral loads based on Ct values, using the QIAstat-Dx® Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel.MethodsDifferent lineages of SARS-CoV-2 clinical samples and the World Health Organization international standard were used to assess the linearity of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel. Limit of detection for the different lineages was characterized.ResultsComparable efficiencies and linearity for all samples resulted in R2 ≥0.99, covering a dynamic range of 1,000,000-100 copies/mL for the SARS-CoV-2 assay, showing linear correlation between Ct values and viral load down to 300 copies/mL.ConclusionThe SARS-CoV-2 Ct values provided by the QIAstat-Dx® Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel could be used as a surrogate for viral load given the linear correlation between Ct values and viral concentration down to limit of detection. This panel allows to obtain reproducible Ct values for SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid downstream of the sample collection, reducing the sample-to-Ct workflow variability. Ct values can help provide a reliable assessment and comparison of viral loads in patients when tested with the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel.
| S-EPMC9273520 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV combination test received emergency use authorization approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration in December 2020, and Health Canada approval in January 2021. The performance characteristics of the GeneXpert Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV combination test were assessed at Lakeridge Health Oshawa and the National Microbiology Laboratory of Canada. The combination test was compared to the Xpert SARS-CoV-2 and Xpert Flu/RSV assays, and the BioFire FilmArray Respiratory Panel 2.1 (RP2.1) test kit. Materials evaluated were serial dilutions of chemically-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 and remnant clinical specimens (nasal or nasopharyngeal swabs) collected from patients. The limit of detection (LOD) for the SARS-CoV-2 component of the Xpert SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV combination test was determined to be <100 viral copies/mL when using chemically-inactivated SARS-CoV-2. In total, 86 clinical positive and 51 clinical negative samples were used for this study, with mixtures of clinical positives being used to mimic coinfection and screen for competitive inhibition. The combination test showed a high percent agreement with the Xpert SARS-CoV-2 and Xpert Flu/RSV tests, as well as the BioFire FilmArray RP2.1. Based on the findings from this study and a growing body of research, the Xpert SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV combination test will serve as an effective replacement for the Xpert SARS-CoV-2 and Xpert Flu/RSV assays.
| S-EPMC8040320 | biostudies-literature