Prospective Evaluation of Xpert® Xpress Strep A Automated PCR Assay vs. Solana® Group A Streptococcal Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing vs. Conventional Throat Culture.

In our laboratory, the negative rapid group A streptococcal (GAS) antigen assays are backed up by the Solana® GAS Assay by Quidel instead of a Group A streptococcal throat culture. Another FDA cleared RT-PCR assay is the Xpert® Xpress Strep A, which detects Streptococcus pyogenes DNA, and is performed on the Cepheid GeneXpert instrument. Three hundred seventy-five positive and negative specimens were randomly selected from 5489 throat specimens that had been tested by the Solana® GAS Assay during January 2018 and were tested with the Xpress Strep A assay. A throat culture was also set up (sheep blood agar at 35 °C in 5% CO2). All beta-hemolytic streptococci were purified and identified by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. Of the 375 samples, 185 were positive by Solana® GAS Assay, and 187 were positive by the Xpress Strep A. The total agreement between the Solana® GAS Assay and the Xpert® Xpress Strep A was 99.5%. The agreement of the Xpert® Xpress Strep A assay with culture was 90.1%. The sensitivity and specificity for Xpress Strep A versus culture were 100% and 83.5%, respectively. The Xpert® Xpress Strep A assay's performance was equivalent to the Solana® GAS Assay, and was highly sensitive. The lower specificity was likely due to the Xpress Strep A assay having higher sensitivity as compared to throat culture.

Prospective Postimplementation Study of Solana Group A Streptococcal Nucleic Acid Amplification Test vs Conventional Throat Culture.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the Solana Group A Streptococcus Assay (Quidel, San Diego, CA), a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), as a substitute for backup culture on throat specimens with a negative rapid group A Streptococcus (GAS) antigen assay. METHODS: During October 2016, all throat swabs from patients with a negative GAS antigen assay from local urgent care centers were processed by NAAT and conventional culture in real time. RESULTS: The overall agreement of the 2,090 tested throat swab specimens of the NAAT with the culture was 2,050 (98%) of 2,090. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 91.4%, 98.5%, 78.0%, and 99.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, this postimplementation study supported high sensitivity and specificity of the GAS NAAT as a backup test for negative rapid GAS antigen tests.

Prospective and Retrospective Evaluation of the Performance of the FDA-Approved Cepheid Xpert Flu/RSV XC Assay.

Rapid and accurate detection of respiratory viruses is important in patient care and in guiding therapy and infection prevention policy. Rapid viral antigen assays are simple to perform and provide results within 15 to 30 minutes but are limited by their modest-to-moderate sensitivity. Molecular assays are more sensitive and specific but require more technical time and expertise and are more expensive. We verified the performance of the Xpert Flu/RSV XC assay prospectively, using patient respiratory samples from the 2014-2015 respiratory season, and, retrospectively, with frozen patient samples from the previous respiratory season. A total of 60 specimens were assayed on the Xpert Flu/RSV XC assay and by the GenMark Diagnostics eSensor Respiratory Viral Panel. The sensitivity of the Xpert Flu/RSV XC for Flu A was 100% (23/23), for Flu B, 80% (8/10), and for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), 94.1% (16/17), compared to the reference assay (GenMark). The specificity was 100%. Eight specimens were positive for viruses other than Flu A/B or RSV, and this did not interfere with detection of targets in the Xpert assay. We demonstrated that the performance of the Xpert Flu/RSV XC was comparable to the more comprehensive molecular respiratory assay.