4.5 Article

Clinical implications of rapid ePlexA® Respiratory Pathogen Panel testing compared to laboratory-developed real-time PCR

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-017-3151-0

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rapid diagnosis of respiratory infections is of great importance for adequate isolation and treatment. Due to the batch-wise testing, laboratory-developed real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays (LDT) often result in a time to result of one day. Here, LDT was compared with rapid ePlexA (R) Respiratory Pathogen (RP) Panel testing of GenMark Diagnostics (Carlsbad, CA, USA) with regard to time to result, installed isolation precautions, and antibacterial/antiviral treatment. Between January and March 2017, 68 specimens of 64 patients suspected of an acute respiratory infection were tested with LDT and the ePlexA (R) RP panel. The time to result was calculated as the time between sample reception and result reporting. Information regarding isolation and antibacterial/antiviral treatment was obtained from the patient records. Thirty specimens tested LDT positive (47%) and 29 ePlexA (R) RP panel positive (45%). The median time to result was 27.1 h (range 6.5-96.6) for LDT versus 3.4 h (range 1.5-23.6) for the RP panel, p-value < 0.001. In 14 out of 30 patients, isolation was discontinued based on the ePlexA (R) RP panel results, saving 21 isolation days. ePlexA (R) RP panel test results were available approximately one day ahead of the LDT results in the 19 patients receiving antiviral/antibacterial treatment. In addition, two bacterial pathogens, not requested by the physician, were detected using the RP panel. Analysis of respiratory infections with the ePlexA (R) RP panel resulted in a significant decrease in time to result, enabling a reduction in isolation days in half of the patients. Furthermore, syndromic RP panel testing increased the identification of causative pathogens.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available