4.6 Article

Comparison of three commercial RT-PCR systems for the detection of respiratory viruses

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY
Volume 61, Issue 3, Pages 406-410

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2014.08.010

Keywords

Respiratory viruses; Influenza; Respiratory syncytial virus; Multiplex real-time PCR

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Due to the insensitivity of rapid tests for respiratory viruses, nucleic acid amplification tests are quickly becoming the standard of care. Objectives and study design: The performance of the FilmArray Respiratory Panel (RP) and Verigene RV+ (RV+) were compared in a retrospective analysis of 89 clinical specimens previously determined to be positive for the following viruses by our test of record, Prodesse (Pro): influenza A (29, FluA), influenza B (13, FluB), respiratory syncytial virus (12, RSV), human metapneumovirus (10, hMPV), parainfluenza (14, PIV), and adenovirus (10, AdV). Samples positive for influenza A, B or RSV were tested by both methods, while the remainder were tested by RP only. True positives were defined as positive by two or more assays. Results: Limit of detection (LOD) analyses demonstrated Pro had the lowest LOD for all FluA strains tested, PIV1, PIV2 and AdV; RV+ had the lowest LOD for FluB; and RP had the lowest LOD for RSV, PIV3 and hMPV. Of the 55 samples tested by RV+, all 54 true positive samples were positive by RV+. Of the 89 samples tested by RP, 85 of the 88 true positive samples were positive by RP. From these results, the overall sensitivities for influenza A, B and RSV were 100% and 98% for RV+ and RP, respectively. The overall sensitivity of RP for all viruses was 97%. Conclusions: In summary, these systems demonstrated excellent performance. Furthermore, each system has benefits which will ensure they will all have a niche in a clinical laboratory. (C) 2014 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