Clinical Performance of the Novel GenMark Dx ePlex Blood Culture ID Gram-Positive Panel.

Rapid identification from positive blood cultures is standard of care (SOC) in many clinical microbiology laboratories. The GenMark Dx ePlex Blood Culture Identification Gram-Positive (BCID-GP) Panel is a multiplex nucleic acid amplification assay based on competitive DNA hybridization and electrochemical detection using eSensor technology. This multicenter study compared the investigational-use-only (IUO) BCID-GP Panel to other methods of identification of 20 Gram-positive bacteria, four antimicrobial resistance genes, and both Pan Candida and Pan Gram-Negative targets that are unique to the BCID-GP Panel. Ten microbiology laboratories throughout the United States collected residual, deidentified positive blood culture samples for analysis. Five laboratories tested both clinical and contrived samples with the BCID-GP Panel. Comparator identification methods included each laboratory's SOC, which included matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) and automated identification systems as well as targeted PCR/analytically validated real-time PCR (qPCR) with bidirectional sequencing. A total of 2,342 evaluable samples (1,777 clinical and 565 contrived) were tested with the BCID-GP Panel. The overall sample accuracy for on-panel organisms was 89% before resolution of discordant results. For pathogenic Gram-positive targets (Bacillus cereus group, Enterococcus spp., Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus lugdunensis, Listeria spp., Listeria monocytogenes, Streptococcus spp., Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus anginosus group, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Streptococcus pyogenes), positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) ranged from 93.1% to 100% and 98.8% to 100%, respectively. For contamination rule-out targets (Bacillus subtilis group, Corynebacterium, Cutibacterium acnes, Lactobacillus, and Micrococcus), PPA and NPA ranged from 84.5% to 100% and 99.9% to 100%, respectively. Positive percent agreement and NPA for the Pan Candida and Pan Gram-Negative targets were 92.4% and 95.7% for the former and 99.9% and 99.6% for the latter. The PPAs for resistance markers were as follows: mecA, 97.2%; mecC, 100%; vanA, 96.8%; and vanB, 100%. Negative percent agreement ranged from 96.6% to 100%. In conclusion, the ePlex BCID-GP Panel compares favorably to SOC and targeted molecular methods for the identification of 20 Gram-positive pathogens and four antimicrobial resistance genes in positive blood culture bottles. This panel detects a broad range of pathogens and mixed infections with yeast and Gram-negative organisms from the same positive blood culture bottle.

Ultrasensitive Detection of Clostridioides difficile Toxins in Stool by Use of Single-Molecule Counting Technology: Comparison with Detection of Free Toxin by Cell Culture Cytotoxicity Neutralization Assay.

Laboratory tests for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) rely on the detection of free toxin or molecular detection of toxin genes. The Singulex Clarity C. diff toxins A/B assay is a rapid, automated, and ultrasensitive assay that detects C. difficile toxins A and B in stool. We compared CDI assays across two prospective multicenter studies to set a cutoff for the Clarity assay and to independently validate the performance compared with that of a cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCCNA). The cutoff was set by two sites testing fresh samples from 897 subjects with suspected CDI and then validated at four sites testing fresh samples from 1,005 subjects with suspected CDI. CCCNA testing was performed at a centralized laboratory. Samples with discrepant results between the Clarity assay and CCCNA were retested with CCCNA when the Clarity result agreed with that of at least one comparator method; toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIA), glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) detection, and PCR were performed on all samples. The cutoff for the Clarity assay was set at 12.0 pg/ml. Compared to results with CCCNA, the Clarity assay initially had 85.2% positive agreement and 92.4% negative agreement. However, when samples with discrepant results between the Clarity assay and CCCNA in the validation study were retested by CCCNA, 13/17 (76.5%) Clarity-negative but CCCNA-positive samples (Clarity+/CCCNA-) became CCCNA-, and 5/26 (19.2%) Clarity+/CCCNA- samples became CCCNA+, resulting in a 96.3% positive agreement and 93.0% negative agreement between Clarity and CCCNA results. The toxin EIA had 59.8% positive agreement with CCCNA. The Clarity assay was the most sensitive free-toxin immunoassay, capable of providing CDI diagnosis in a single-step solution. A different CCCNA result was reported for 42% of retested samples, increasing the positive agreement between Clarity and CCCNA from 85.2% to 96.3% and indicating the challenges of comparing free-toxin results to CCCNA results as a reference standard.

Laboratory comparison between cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay and ultrasensitive single molecule counting technology for detection of Clostridioides difficile toxins A and B, PCR, enzyme immunoassays, and multistep algorithms.

Diagnostic tests for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) lack either specificity (nucleic acid amplification tests) or sensitivity (enzyme immunoassays; EIAs). The performance of the Singulex Clarity® C. diff toxins A/B assay was compared to cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay. Testing was also performed using an EIA for glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and C. difficile toxins A and B (C. Diff Quik Chek Complete®), polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (BD MAX™ Cdiff Assay), and 2 multistep algorithms: algorithm 1 (discordant GDH/toxin results arbitrated by PCR) and algorithm 2 (PCR-positive samples tested with toxin EIA). The Clarity assay and PCR both had 97% sensitivity, while specificity was 100% for Clarity and 79% for PCR. Algorithm 1 yielded 41% discordant results, and both toxin EIA and algorithm 2 had 58% sensitivity. Median toxin concentrations, as measured by the Clarity C. difficile toxin assay, were 3590, 11.5, 0.4, and 0 pg/mL for GDH+/toxin+, GDH+/toxin-/PCR+, GDH+/toxin-/PCR-, and GDH-/toxin- samples, respectively (P < 0.001). The Clarity assay may offer a single-test solution for CDI.

Performance of the COBAS® AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan® automated system for hepatitis C virus (HCV) quantification in a multi-center comparison.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative HCV RNA testing is considered standard of care for monitoring during treatment of patients infected with HCV. The COBAS(®) AmpliPrep/COBAS(®) TaqMan(®) HCV Test fully automates specimen processing and reaction assembly for HCV viral load testing using reverse transcription and real-time PCR amplification. OBJECTIVES: The performance of the COBAS(®) AmpliPrep/COBAS(®) TaqMan(®) HCV Test was evaluated in a multi-center study. STUDY DESIGN: Typical plasma based specimens were tested for accuracy, analytic range of measurement, reproducibility and genotype specific quantitation. RESULTS: Linear regression analysis of the quantitative results demonstrated a linear range of detection from 50 to 5 million (1.7-6.7 log(10))IU/mL and a coefficient of determination (R(2)) of 0.9948. The precision of the assay was highly reproducible within and between runs and among laboratories with coefficients of variance (CV) ranging from 6.7% to 40.0% across the seven laboratories. A representative sample for each of the six major HCV genotypes demonstrated reproducible quantitation between the seven laboratories. CONCLUSIONS: The COBAS(®) AmpliPrep/COBAS(®) TaqMan(®) HCV Test is a reliable and sensitive assay for HCV RNA quantitation.