4.7 Article

Evaluation of a multiplexed PCR assay for detection of respiratory viral pathogens in a public health laboratory setting

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 45, Issue 12, Pages 3875-3882

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00838-07

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [U19 AI070503] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There are numerous viral and bacterial causes of respiratory disease. To enable rapid and sensitive detection of even the most prevalent causes, there is a need for more-simplified testing systems that enable researchers and clinicians to perform multiplexed molecular diagnostics quickly and easily. To this end, a new multiplexed molecular test called the MultiCode-PLx respiratory virus panel (PLx-RVP) was developed and then implemented in a public health laboratory setting. A total of 687 respiratory samples were analyzed for the presence of 17 viruses that commonly cause respiratory disease. As a comparator, the samples were also tested using a standard testing algorithm that included the use of a real-time influenza virus A and B reverse transcription-PCR test and routine viral culture identification. The standard testing algorithm identified 503 (73%) samples as positive and 184 as negative. Analyzing the same 687 samples, the PLx-RVP assay detected one or more targets in 528 (77%) samples and found 159 samples negative for all targets. There were 25 discordant results between the two systems; 14 samples were positive for viruses not routinely tested for by the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, and 13 of these were confirmed by real-time PCR. When the results of the standard testing algorithm were considered true positives, the PLx-RVP assay showed an overall sensitivity of 99% and an overall specificity of 87%. In total, the PLx-RVP assay detected an additional 40 viral infections, of which 11 were mixed infections.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available