4.6 Article

Performance evaluation of a rapid molecular diagnostic, MultiCode based, sample-to-answer assay for the simultaneous detection of Influenza A, B and respiratory syncytial viruses

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY
Volume 85, Issue -, Pages 65-70

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2016.10.019

Keywords

Aries luminex; Real-time PCR; MultiCode; Point of impact; Rapid test; Direct immunofluorescence assay; DFA; Immunochromatography test; ICT

Categories

Funding

  1. EU FP7 project PREPARE [602525]
  2. Hoffmann-La Roche
  3. GSK

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Clinical signs and symptoms of different airway pathogens are generally indistinguishable, making laboratory tests essential for clinical decisions regarding isolation and antiviral therapy. Immunochromatographic tests (ICT) and direct immunofluorescence assays (DFA) have lower sensitivities and specificities than molecular assays, but have the advantage of quick turnaround times and ease-of-use. Objective: To evaluate the performance of a rapid molecular assay, ARIES FluA/B & RSV, using laboratory developed RT-PCR assays (LDA), ICT (BinaxNOW) and DFA. Methods: Analytical and clinical performance were evaluated in a retrospective study arm (stored respiratory samples obtained between 2006-2015) and a prospective study arm (unselected fresh clinical samples obtained between December 2015 and March 2016 tested in parallel with LDAs). Results: Genotype inclusivity and analytical specificity was 100%. However, ARIES was 0.5 log, 1-2logs and 2.5logs less sensitive for fluA, RSV and fluB respectively, compared to LDA. In total, 447 clinical samples were included, of which 15.4% tested positive for fluA, 9.2% for fluB and 26.0% for RSV, in both LDA and ARIES. ARIES clinical sensitivity compared to LDA was 98.6% (fluA), 93.3% (fluB) and 95.1% (RSV). Clinical specificity was 100% for all targets. ARIES detected 10.6% (4 fluA, 8 fluB, 11 RSV) and 26.9% (7 fluA, 3 fluB, 22 RSV) more samples compared to DFA and ICT, all confirmed by LDA. Conclusion: Although analytically ARIES is less sensitive than LDA, the clinical performance of the assay in our tertiary care setting was comparable, and significantly better than that of the established rapid assays. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available