The Clinical Performance of the BioCode Respiratory Pathogen Panel for the Detection of Viruses and Bacteria from Nasopharyngeal Swabs.

Early detection of microbial pathogens causing respiratory tract infection plays a crucial role in clinical management. The BioCode Respiratory Pathogen Panel (BioCode RPP) utilizes reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) in combination with barcoded magnetic beads to amplify, detect, and identify respiratory pathogens. This panel qualitatively detects and identifies 14 viruses, including influenza virus A with H1 pdm09, H1, and H3 subtyping; influenza B; respiratory syncytial virus (RSV); human metapneumovirus; parainfluenza virus 1; parainfluenza virus 2; parainfluenza virus 3; parainfluenza virus 4; coronavirus (229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1); adenovirus; and human rhinovirus/enterovirus, and 3 bacteria, including Chlamydia pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Bordetella pertussis. Reproducibility, which was assessed with contrived specimens containing 12 targets at 3 clinical sites, with 2 operators at each site for 5 days, was 99.4% for Flu A H3 and Flu B, 98.9% for RSV, and 100% for the remaining 9 targets assayed. A multicenter clinical trial evaluated the performance of the BioCode RPP with 2,647 nasopharyngeal swab specimens from 5 geographically distinct sites and revealed comparable performance between the BioCode RPP and FilmArray Respiratory Panel (FA-RP). Specifically, the positive percent agreements (PPAs) for various pathogens ranged between 80.8% and 100% compared with the FA-RP (1.7 and 2.0). Negative percent agreement ranged from 98.4% to 100% for BioCode RPP. The BioCode RPP also offers scalable automated testing capability of up to 96 specimens in a single run with total sample-to-result time under 5 h. The invalid rate of the BioCode RPP on initial testing was 1.0% (26/2,649). IMPORTANCE Early detection of microbial pathogens causing respiratory tract infection plays a crucial role in clinical management. The BioCode Respiratory Pathogen Panel (BioCode RPP) is a high-throughput test that utilizes RT-PCR in combination with barcoded magnetic beads to amplify, detect, and identify 17 respiratory pathogens, including 14 viruses and 3 bacteria. This study summarizes data generated from a multicenter clinical trial evaluating the performance of the BioCode RPP on 2,647 nasopharyngeal swab specimens from five geographically distinct sites.

Agreement of respiratory viruses' detection between nasopharyngeal swab and bronchoalveolar lavage in adults admitted for pneumonia: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the high diagnostic accuracy of the nasopharyngeal swab (including in intensive care unit (ICU) patients). This study aimed to compare nasopharyngeal swab and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) results for non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses in patients with suspected pneumonia. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed in one French academic hospital on consecutive adults from 2012 to 2018 and tested nasopharyngeal swab and BAL within 24 hours by using multiplex PCR. The agreement in pathogen detection between nasopharyngeal swab and BAL was evaluated. RESULTS: Patients were primarily men (n = 178/276, 64.5%), with a median age of 60 years (IQR: 51-68 years). Of the 276 patients, 169 (61%) were admitted to the ICU for acute respiratory distress. We detected at least one respiratory virus in 34.4% of the nasopharyngeal swabs (n = 95/276) and 29.0% of BAL (n = 80/276). Two or more viruses were detected in 2.5% of the nasopharyngeal swabs (n = 7/276) and 2.2% of BAL (n = 6/276). Rhinovirus/enteroviruses were the most frequently detected viral group in 10.2% (n = 29/285) of the nasopharyngeal swabs and 9.5% (n = 27/285) of BAL, followed by influenza A, detected in 5.6% (n = 16/285) of the nasopharyngeal swabs and 4.9% (n = 14/285) of BAL. Overall agreement was 83.7% (n = 231/276 (95% CI [78.7%, 87.7%])) (i.e. same pathogen or pathogen combination was identified in the nasopharyngeal swab and BAL for 231 patients). Rhinovirus/enterovirus (n = 29/231) and respiratory syncytial virus (n = 13/231) had the lowest agreement of 62.1% (n = 18/29 (95% CI [42.4%-78.7%])) and 61.5% (n = 8/13 (95% CI [32.3%-84.9%])), respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There was a good agreement between nasopharyngeal swabs and BAL in detecting respiratory viruses among adult patients with suspected pneumonia. However, these data still encourage BAL in the case of a negative nasopharyngeal swab.

Clinical Performance Evaluation of the NeuMoDx Flu A-B/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 Vantage Assay.

SARS-CoV-2 infections may present with various symptoms that are similar to those of other respiratory diseases. For this reason, the need for simultaneous detection of at least RSV and influenza viruses together with SARS-CoV-2 was evident from the early stages of the pandemic. In the present study, we evaluated the clinical performance of the NeuMoDx™ Flu A-B/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 Vantage Assay against the conventional low-plex PCR utilized to detect influenza A-B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2. There were 115 known positive clinical samples and 35 negative controls obtained from asymptomatic health-care workers included in the study; 25 samples were positive for influenza viruses, 46 for RSV, and 44 for SARS-CoV-2. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the evaluated method for influenza and SARS-CoV-2 were 100%. The Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.586 (p < 0.05) for influenza and 0.893 (p < 0.05) for SARS-CoV-2. The sensitivity of the aforementioned assay for RSV was 93.47%; the specificity and the positive predictive value were 100%, and the negative predictive value was 92.10%, while the Spearman correlation coefficient was not applicable for the RSV. Overall, the assay under evaluation was shown to be a reliable alternative for the simultaneous detection of influenza viruses, RSV and SARS-CoV-2.

Comparative Performance of the Luminex NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel, GenMark eSensor Respiratory Viral Panel, and BioFire FilmArray Respiratory Panel.

This study compares three of the most inclusive and widely used panels for respiratory syndromic testing in the United States, namely, Luminex NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel (RPP), BioFire FilmArray Respiratory Panel (RP), and GenMark eSensor Respiratory Viral Panel (RVP). We compared the three assays using nasopharyngeal swab samples (n = 350) collected from symptomatic patients (n = 329) in the pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era. There was no significant difference in the overall accuracies of BioFire and Luminex assays (P = 0.6171); however, significant differences were found between BioFire and GenMark (P = 0.0003) and between GenMark and Luminex (P = 0.0009). The positive percent agreement of the BioFire RP assay was 94.1%, compared to 97.3% for GenMark RVP and 96.5% for Luminex RPP. Overall negative percent agreement values were high for all three assays, i.e., 99.9% for BioFire and Luminex and 99.5% for GenMark. The three assays were equivalent for adenovirus, human metapneumovirus, influenza A, and respiratory syncytial virus. Increased false-positive results were seen with BioFire for the endemic coronaviruses and with GenMark for influenza B and the parainfluenza viruses. IMPORTANCE Clinical laboratories have multiple choices when it is comes to syndromic respiratory testing. Here, the Luminex NxTAG RPP is compared to the BioFire FilmArray RP and GenMark eSensor RVP for overall and per-target accuracy. As new tests come to market, it is important to ascertain their performance characteristics, compared to other widely used in vitro diagnostic products.

Rapid syndromic testing for respiratory viral infections in children attending the emergency department during COVID-19 pandemic in Lille, France, 2021-2022.

OBJECTIVES: Viral respiratory infections are common in children, and usually associated with non-specific symptoms. Respiratory panel-based testing was implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, for the rapid differentiation between SARS-CoV-2 and other viral infections, in children attending the emergency department (ED) of the teaching hospital of Lille, northern France, between February 2021 and January 2022. METHODS: Samples were collected using nasopharyngeal swabs. Syndromic respiratory testing was performed with two rapid multiplex molecular assays: the BioFire® Respiratory Panel 2.1 - plus (RP2.1 plus) or the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel. SARS-CoV-2 variant was screened using mutation-specific PCR-based assays and genome sequencing. RESULTS: A total of 3517 children were included in the study. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in samples from 265 children (7.5%). SARS-CoV-2 infected patients were younger than those without SARS-CoV-2 infection (median age: 6 versus 12 months, p < 0.0001). The majority of infections (61.5%) were associated with the Omicron variant. The median weekly SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate ranged from 1.76% during the Alpha variant wave to 24.5% with the emergence of the Omicron variant. Most children (70.2%) were treated as outpatients, and seventeen patients were admitted to the intensive care unit. Other respiratory viruses were more frequently detected in SARS-CoV-2 negative children than in positive ones (82.1% versus 37.4%, p < 0.0001). Human rhinovirus/enterovirus and respiratory syncytial virus were the most prevalent in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children attending pediatric ED, despite the significant increase due to Delta and Omicron variants, and an important circulation of other respiratory viruses. Severe disease was overall rare in children.

Reduction and persistence of co-circulating respiratory viruses during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

To evaluate the co-circulation of respiratory viruses during the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha surge, we performed a molecular respiratory panel on 1,783 nasopharyngeal swabs collected between January 15 and April 15, 2021, from symptomatic outpatients that tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 in North Carolina. Of these, 373 (20.9%) were positive for at least 1 virus tested on the panel. Among positive tests, over 90% were positive for rhinovirus and/or enterovirus, either as a single infection or coinfection, illustrating persistent co-circulation of some respiratory viruses despite active infection control measures.

Evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 and the BioFire FilmArray RP2.1 for the Rapid Detection of Respiratory Pathogens Including SARS-CoV-2.

Point-of-care syndromic panels allow for simultaneous and rapid detection of respiratory pathogens from nasopharyngeal swabs. The clinical performance of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 panel RP2.0 (QIAstat-Dx RP2.0) and the BioFire FilmArray Respiratory panel RP2.1 (BioFire RP2.1) was evaluated for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other common respiratory pathogens. A total of 137 patient samples were retrospectively selected based on emergency department admission, along with 33 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples tested using a WHO laboratory developed test. The limit of detection for SARS-CoV-2 was initially evaluated for both platforms. The QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 detected SARS-CoV-2 at 500 copies/mL and had a positive percent agreement (PPA) of 85%. The BioFire RP2.1 detected SARS-CoV-2 at 50 copies/mL and had a PPA of 97%. Both platforms showed a negative percent agreement of 100% for SARS-CoV-2. Evaluation of analytical specificity from a range of common respiratory targets showed a similar performance between each platform. The QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 had an overall PPA of 82% (67-100%) in clinical samples, with differences in sensitivity depending on the respiratory target. Both platforms can be used to detect acute cases of SARS-CoV-2. While the QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 is suitable for detecting respiratory viruses within a clinical range, it has less analytical and clinical sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 compared to the BioFire RP2.1.

Viral epidemiology and SARS-CoV-2 co-infections with other respiratory viruses during the first COVID-19 wave in Paris, France.

OBJECTIVES: Our work assessed the prevalence of co-infections in patients with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: All patients hospitalized in a Parisian hospital during the first wave of COVID-19 were tested by multiplex PCR if they presented ILI symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 806 patients (21%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2, 755 (20%) were positive for other respiratory viruses. Among the SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, 49 (6%) had viral co-infections. They presented similar age, symptoms, except for fever (P = .013) and headaches (P = .048), than single SARS-CoV-2 infections. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2-infected patients presenting viral co-infections had similar clinical characteristics and prognosis than patients solely infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Point-of-care tests for influenza A and B viruses and RSV in emergency departments - indications, impact on patient management and possible gains by syndromic respiratory testing, Capital Region, Denmark, 2018.

BackgroundPoint-of-care tests (POCT) for influenza A and B viruses and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) were implemented in emergency departments of all hospitals in the Capital Region of Denmark in 2018.AimTo establish whether POC testing for influenza viruses or RSV is based on a valid respiratory symptom indication, whether changes in patient management based on a positive result are safe and whether syndromic POC testing may benefit patients with influenza or RSV.MethodsSamples from 180 children (< 18 years) and 375 adults tested using POCT between February and July 2018 were retested for 26 respiratory pathogens. Diagnosis, indication for POC testing, hospitalisation time, antimicrobial therapy and readmission or death within one month of testing were obtained from patient records.ResultsA valid indication for POC testing was established in 168 (93.3%) of children and 334 (89.1%) of adults. A positive POCT result significantly reduced antibiotic prescription and median hospitalisation time by 44.3 hours for adults and 14.2 hours for children, and significantly increased antiviral treatment in adults. Risk of readmission or death was not significantly altered by a positive result. Testing for 26 respiratory pathogens established that risk of coinfection is lower with increasing age and that POCT for adults should be restricted to the influenza and RSV season.ConclusionPositive POCT resulted in changed patient management for both children and adults, and was deemed safe. POCT for additional pathogens may be beneficial in children below 5 years of age and outside the influenza and RSV season.