Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

25 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Clinical evaluation of the GeneXpert® Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV combination test

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Johnson G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8040320 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Recommendations for sample pooling on the Cepheid GeneXpert® system using the Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay.

Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic, caused by SARS-CoV-2, has resulted in a global testing supply shortage. In response, pooled testing has emerged as a promising strategy that can immediately increase testing capacity. In pooled sample testing, multiple samples are combined (or pooled) together and tested as a single unit. If the pool is positive, the individual samples can then be individually tested to identify the positive case(s). Here, we provide support for the adoption of sample pooling with the point-of-care Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 molecular assay. Corroborating previous findings, the limit of detection of this assay was comparable to laboratory-developed reverse-transcription quantitative PCR SARS-CoV-2 tests, with observed detection below 100 copies/mL. The Xpert® Xpress assay detected SARS-CoV-2 after samples with minimum viral loads of 461 copies/mL were pooled in groups of six. Based on these data, we recommend the adoption of pooled testing with the Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay where warranted based on public health needs. The suggested number of samples per pool, or the pooling depth, is unique for each point-of-care testing site and can be determined by the positive test rates. To statistically determine appropriate pooling depth, we have calculated the pooling efficiency for numerous combinations of pool sizes and test rates. This information is included as a supplemental dataset that we encourage public health authorities to use as a guide to make recommendations that will maximize testing capacity and resource conservation.

| S-EPMC7652318 | biostudies-literature

Cepheid Xpert® Xpress Flu/RSV Evaluation Performed by Minimally Trained Non-Laboratory Operators in a CLIA-Waived Environment

Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the significance of readily available and easily performed viral testing for surveillance during future infectious pandemics. The objectives of this study were: to assess the performance of the Xpert® Xpress Flu/RSV test, a multiplex PCR assay for detecting influenza A and B virus and respiratory syncytial virus nucleic acids in respiratory tract specimens, relative to the Quidel Lyra Influenza A+B assay and the Prodesse ProFlu+ assay, and the system's ease of use by minimally trained operators. Overall, the Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV test demonstrated a high positive and negative percent agreement with the comparator assays, and was easy to use and interpret results, based on the operators’ feedback. We concluded that the Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV test is sensitive, specific, and easy to use for the diagnosis of influenza and RSV by minimally trained operators and can be a valuable tool in future infectious clusters or pandemics.

| S-EPMC9271353 | biostudies-literature

Comparative Evaluation of the Thermo Fisher TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit with the Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Assay for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 in Nasopharyngeal Specimens

Project description: Not available

| S-BSST645 | biostudies-other

How Significant Are Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Test Findings When Only an N2 Gene Is Detected?

Project description:The rapid identification of patients infected with COVID-19 during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is critical to operating emergency rooms effectively. Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert) assays are increasingly being used in the rapid screening of COVID-19. We evaluated the clinical performance of Xpert by comparing findings with those of qRT-PCR evaluations and included the clinical features of patients visiting the emergency department. Positive results with Xpert testing (n = 370) were compared with qRT-PCR findings, demonstrating a 91.9% intertest agreement. We reviewed the subsequent COVID-19 test results and SARS-CoV-2 infection histories for individuals showing discrepancies in Xpert and qRT-PCR testing and determined whether the findings were true-positive or false-positive. The true-positive rate for Xpert testing was 95.4% (353/370); the remaining 17 samples (4.6%) were false-positive. All false-positive data for Xpert testing showed N2 signals amplified to Ct values of ≥40 with no E gene signals. Rapid Xpert testing is highly sensitive and shows a good performance overall in challenging situations, such as an emergency room. However, we considered the possibility of false-positive Xpert results given an N2 gene signal only, especially given high Ct values. We recommend interpreting test data with caution and considering retesting over time.

| S-EPMC9498257 | biostudies-literature

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Xpert Xpress to SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review.

Project description:The SARS-CoV-2 infection rate, as well as mortality rate, is high. There is an urgent need for a high-throughput, accurate and reliable method of diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia. We included references from databases, such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase, and extracted data. Then, MetaDisc and STATA were used to establish forest plots and funnel plots for meta-analysis. We collected 14 articles and performed a systematic review. The following results were obtained: sensitivity and specificity were 0.97 (0.96 to 0.98) and 0.97 (0.96 to 0.98) respectively; PLR and NLR were 24.51 (16.63-36.12) and 0.03 (0.01 to 0.10) respectively, DOR was 975.15 (430.11-2210.88), and AUC was 0.9926. When Xpress detects SARS-CoV-2 in different samples, the heterogeneity is small and the specificity and sensitivity are extremely high. We recommend the employment of Xpert Xpress analysis in rapid screening.

| S-EPMC8754461 | biostudies-literature

Evaluation of the automated cartridge-based ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay (RUO) against automated Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 PCR as gold standard.

Project description:Introduction:To evaluate the automated cartridge-based PCR approach ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay targeting the ORF-sequence and the N-gene of SARS-CoV-2. Methods:In line with the suggestions by Rabenau and colleagues, the automated ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay was challenged with strongly positive samples, weakly positive samples and negative samples. Further, intra-assay and inter-assay precision as well as the limit-of-detection (lod) were defined with quantified target RNA and DNA. The Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-Cov-2 Assay was used as gold standard. Results:Concordance between the ARIES assay and the Cepheid assay was 100% for strongly positive samples and for negative samples, respectively. For weakly positive samples as confirmed applying the Cepheid assay, a relevant minority of 4 out of 15 samples (26.7%) went undetected by the ARIES assay. Intra- and inter-assay precision were satisfactory, while the lod was in the 103 DNA copies/reaction-range, in the 103 virus copies/reaction-range, or in the 103-104 free RNA copies/reaction-range in our hands. Conclusions:The automated ARIES assay shows comparable test characteristics as the Cepheid assay focusing on strongly positive and negative samples but a slightly reduced sensitivity with weakly positive samples. Decisions on diagnostic use should include considerations on the lod.

| S-EPMC7592518 | biostudies-literature

Presumptive positive with the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay due to N mutations in the Delta variant.

Project description:The Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay is 1 of the several real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays that received Emergency Use Authorization from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Here we report 4 SARS-CoV-2 samples that were reported as presumptive positives on the Cepheid platform while reported as positives on alternative RT-PCR platforms. Whole genome sequencing indicated that the samples were Delta variants and had point mutations in the N gene which potentially interfered with SARS-CoV-2 detection. Two types of point mutations were found in these samples in the US CDC 2019-nCoV Real time PCR N2 Probe region: C29203T and C29200T. C29203T is a novel point mutation, and C29200T has not been previously reported in the Delta variants. This underlines the fact that mutations in the real-time RT-PCR assay target region could hinder accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2.

| S-EPMC9023076 | biostudies-literature

Comparison of Cepheid Xpert Xpress and Abbott ID Now to Roche cobas for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Project description:BackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has created an urgent and unprecedented need for rapid large-scale diagnostic testing to inform timely patient management. However, robust data are lacking on the relative performance of available rapid molecular tests across a full range of viral concentrations.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare two recently-authorized rapid tests, Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and Abbott ID Now SARS-CoV-2, to the Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay for samples with low, medium, and high viral concentrations.Study designA total of 113 nasopharyngeal swabs from remnant patient samples were tested, including 88 positives spanning the full range of observed Ct values on the cobas assay.ResultsCompared to cobas, the overall positive agreement was 73.9% with ID Now and 98.9% with Xpert. Negative agreement was 100% and 92.0% for ID Now and Xpert, respectively. Both ID Now and Xpert showed 100% positive agreement for medium and high viral concentrations (Ct value <30). However, for Ct values >30, positive agreement was 34.3% for ID Now and 97.1% for Xpert.ConclusionsWhile Xpert showed high agreement with cobas across a wide range of viral concentrations, this study highlights an important limitation of ID Now for specimens collected in viral or universal transport media with low viral concentrations. Further studies are needed to evaluate the performance of ID Now for direct swabs.

| S-EPMC7217789 | biostudies-literature

Prevalence of a Single-Nucleotide Variant of SARS-CoV-2 in Korea and Its Impact on the Diagnostic Sensitivity of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Assay.

Project description:The sensitivity of molecular diagnostics could be affected by nucleotide variants in pathogen genes, and the sites affected by such variants should be monitored. We report a single-nucleotide variant (SNV) in the nucleocapsid (N) gene of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), i.e., G29179T, which impairs the diagnostic sensitivity of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). We observed significant differences between the threshold cycle (Ct) values for envelope (E) and N genes and confirmed the SNV as the cause of the differences using Sanger sequencing. This SNV, G29179T, is the most prevalent in Korea and is associated with the B.1.497 virus lineage, which is dominant in Korea. Clinical laboratories should be aware of the various SNVs in the SARS-CoV-2 genome and consider their potential effects on the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019.

| S-EPMC8368233 | biostudies-literature

Cepheid Xpert<sup>®</sup> Flu/RSV and Seegene Allplex<sup>™</sup> RP1 show high diagnostic agreement for the detection of influenza A/B and respiratory syncytial viruses in clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundMolecular assays based on reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) provide reliable results for the detection of respiratory pathogens, although diagnostic agreement varies. This study determined the agreement between the RT-PCR assays (Xpert® Flu/RSV vs Allplex™ RP1) in detecting influenza A, influenza B, and respiratory syncytial viruses (RSVs) in clinical practice.MethodsWe retrospectively identified 914 patient encounters where testing with both Xpert® Flu/RSV and Allplex™ RP1 was undertaken between October 2015 and September 2019 in seven hospitals across New South Wales, Australia. The diagnostic agreement of the two assays was evaluated using positive percent agreement, negative percent agreement, and prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa.ResultsThe positive percent agreement was 95.1% for influenza A, 87.5% for influenza B, and 77.8% for RSV. The negative percent agreement was 99.4% for influenza A, 99.9% for influenza B, and 100% for RSV. The prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa was 0.98 for influenza A, 0.99 for influenza B, and 0.97 for RSV. In a sensitivity analysis, the positive percent agreement values were significantly higher during the non-influenza season than the influenza season for influenza B and RSV.ConclusionsThe Xpert® Flu/RSV and Allplex™ RP1 demonstrated a high diagnostic agreement for all three viruses assessed. The seasonal variation in the positive percent agreement of the two assays for influenza B and RSV may have been due to lower numbers assessed, variability in the virology of infections outside the peak season, or changes in the physiology of the infected host in different seasons.

| S-EPMC7461471 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data