Dataset Information

Multicenter Performance Evaluation of the Simplexa Bordetella Direct Kit in Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens.

ABSTRACT: Detection of Bordetella pertussis and Bordetella parapertussis using molecular methods is sensitive and specific with a short turnaround time compared to other diagnostic methods. In this multicenter study, we compared the performance of the Simplexa Bordetella Direct kit to those of other molecular assays in detecting and differentiating B. pertussis and B. parapertussis in nasopharyngeal swab specimens. The limits of detection (LODs) were 150 CFU/ml or 3 fg/μl of DNA for B. pertussis and 1,500 CFU/ml or 10 fg/μl of DNA for B. parapertussis A total of 1,103 fresh and residual frozen specimens from eight clinical sites were tested. Combining the data from individual clinical sites using different comparative assays, the overall positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) for B. pertussis were 98.7% and 97.3%, respectively. The overall PPA and NPA for B. parapertussis were 96.7% and 100%, respectively. For prospective fresh specimens, the overall PPA and NPA for both targets were 97.7% and 99.3%, respectively. For retrospective frozen specimens, the overall PPA and NPA for both targets were 92.6% and 93.2%, respectively. The percentage of invalid results was 1.0%. A cross-reactivity study using 74 non-Bordetella bacterial species and five yeast species revealed that the Simplexa Bordetella Direct kit was 100% specific. The hands-on time and assay run time of the Simplexa Bordetella Direct kit are favorable compared to those of other commercial and laboratory-developed tests. In summary, the Simplexa Bordetella Direct kit has a performance comparable to those of other molecular assays for the detection of B. pertussis and B. parapertussis.

SUBMITTER: Chow SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7771431 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Saliva is a promising alternative for a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) in specimen collection to detect SARS-CoV-2. We compared the diagnostic performance and tolerability of saliva collection versus NPS in a clinical setting. Paired NPS and saliva specimens were collected sequentially from participants (n = 250) at the Turku University Hospital drive-in coronavirus testing station in the spring of 2022, with Omicron BA.2 as the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variant. Discomfort and preference for the sampling method were assessed. The specimens were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 using real-time multiplex reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) with a laboratory-developed test (LDT) and two commercial kits (PerkinElmer SARS-CoV-2 and PerkinElmer SARS-CoV-2 Plus) for several target genes. Among the 250 participants, 246 had respiratory symptoms. With LDT, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 135 and 134 participants from NPS and saliva, respectively. Of the 250 specimens, 11 gave a discordant outcome, resulting in excellent agreement between the specimen types (Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.911; P = 0.763). The cycle threshold (CT) values of LDT and commercial kit target genes were significantly lower from NPS than from saliva. A total of 172 (69%) participants assessed saliva sampling as more tolerable than NPS (P < 0.0001). Our findings present saliva as an applicable alternative for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. However, the lower CT values obtained from NPS indicate that NPS may be a slightly more sensitive specimen type. Participants preferred saliva sampling, although delivering an adequate volume of saliva was challenging for some participants. IMPORTANCE The extensive testing of SARS-CoV-2 is vital in controlling the spread of COVID-19. The reference standard for specimen collection is a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS). However, the discomfort of NPS sampling, the risk of nosocomial infections, and global material shortages have accelerated the development of alternative testing methods. Our study demonstrates that patients tolerate saliva sampling better than NPS. Of importance, although the RT-PCR qualitative test results seem to correspond between NPS and saliva, we show significantly lower CT values for NPS, compared to saliva, thus contradicting the suggested superiority of the saliva specimen over NPS in the detection of the Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2. Future research is still required to enable individual planning for specimen collection and to determine the effects of different SARS-CoV-2 variants on the sensitivity of the saliva matrix.

Project description:A rapid real-time multiplex PCR assay for detecting and differentiating Bordetella pertussis and Bordetella parapertussis in nasopharyngeal swabs was developed. This assay (LC-PCR-IS) targets the insertion sequences IS481 and IS1001 of B. pertussis and B. parapertussis, respectively, and is performed using the LightCycler (Roche Molecular Biochemicals, Indianapolis, Ind.). The analytical sensitivity is less than one organism per reaction. Results for Bordetella culture and/or direct fluorescent antibody testing and a second LightCycler PCR assay (target, pertussis toxin gene) were compared to results of the LC-PCR-IS assay for 111 nasopharyngeal swabs submitted for pertussis testing. Of the specimens, 12 were positive (9 B. pertussis and 3 B. parapertussis) and 68 specimens were negative by all methods. Three other specimens were positive for B. pertussis by at least two of the methods (including the LC-PCR-IS assay), and another 28 specimens were positive for B. pertussis by the LC-PCR-IS assay only. No specimens were negative by the LC-PCR-IS assay and positive by the other methods. A conventional PCR method (target, IS481) was also compared to the LC-PCR-IS assay for a different group of nasopharyngeal swab specimens (n = 96): 44 specimens were positive and 41 specimens were negative for B. pertussis with both PCR methods. Nine specimens were positive for B. pertussis by the LC-PCR-IS assay and negative by the conventional PCR assay, and two specimens were positive for B. pertussis by the conventional PCR assay and negative by the LC-PCR-IS assay. Positivity of the two assays was not significantly different (P = 0.0654). The insertion sequence IS481 is also present in Bordetella holmesii; specimens containing B. holmesii may yield false-positive results. The LC-PCR-IS assay takes approximately 45 min to complete post-nucleic acid extraction, compared to 24 h for the conventional PCR assay previously used in our laboratory. The LC-PCR-IS assay is easier to perform than the conventional PCR assay, and the closed system decreases the chance of contamination. All of these characteristics represent a significant improvement in the detection of B. pertussis and B. parapertussis in nasopharyngeal specimens.

Dataset Information

Multicenter Performance Evaluation of the Simplexa Bordetella Direct Kit in Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets