ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Influenza A virus/isolation & purification , Influenza B virus/isolation & purification , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods , Respiratory Syncytial Viruses/isolation & purification , Respiratory Tract Infections/diagnosis , Virus Diseases/diagnosis , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Influenza A virus/genetics , Influenza B virus/genetics , Male , Middle Aged , Respiratory Syncytial Viruses/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity , Time Factors , Young AdultABSTRACT
To evaluate the analytical performance and explore the clinical applicability of the new Roche cobas AmpliPrep/cobas TaqMan HCV test, v2.0 (CAP/CTM v2.0), a platform comparison was performed on panels and diagnostic samples with the Roche cobas AmpliPrep/cobas TaqMan HCV test (CAP/CTM v1.0), the Siemens Versant HCV RNA 3.0 branched DNA (bDNA) test, the Abbott m2000 RealTime HCV assay (Realtime assay), and the Siemens Versant HCV transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) test (TMA assay). The analytical performance of the CAP/CTM v2.0 on WHO and Acrometrix panels and clinical specimens of patients infected with HCV genotype 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 relative to that of the CAP/CTM v1.0 was significantly improved. In a qualitative comparison of the CAP/CTM v2.0 relative to the TMA assay on genotype 1 to 4 samples, the two tests proved to be almost equally sensitive. Response-guided therapy in one of five HCV genotype 4-infected patients previously tested with the CAP/CTM v1.0 would have significantly changed if tested with the CAP/CTM v2.0. In conclusion, the Roche CAP/CTM v2.0 has significantly better performance characteristics than the former CAP/CTM HCV v1.0 and the bDNA assay and performance characteristics comparable to those of the Realtime assay.
