Cargando…

Clinical implications of rapid ePlex® Respiratory Pathogen Panel testing compared to laboratory-developed real-time PCR

Rapid diagnosis of respiratory infections is of great importance for adequate isolation and treatment. Due to the batch-wise testing, laboratory-developed real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays (LDT) often result in a time to result of one day. Here, LDT was compared with rapid ePlex® Resp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Rijn, Anneloes L., Nijhuis, Roel H. T., Bekker, Vincent, Groeneveld, Geert H., Wessels, Els, Feltkamp, Mariet C. W., Claas, Eric C. J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5816761/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29222697
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-017-3151-0
_version_ 1783300740575395840
author van Rijn, Anneloes L.
Nijhuis, Roel H. T.
Bekker, Vincent
Groeneveld, Geert H.
Wessels, Els
Feltkamp, Mariet C. W.
Claas, Eric C. J.
author_facet van Rijn, Anneloes L.
Nijhuis, Roel H. T.
Bekker, Vincent
Groeneveld, Geert H.
Wessels, Els
Feltkamp, Mariet C. W.
Claas, Eric C. J.
author_sort van Rijn, Anneloes L.
collection PubMed
description Rapid diagnosis of respiratory infections is of great importance for adequate isolation and treatment. Due to the batch-wise testing, laboratory-developed real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays (LDT) often result in a time to result of one day. Here, LDT was compared with rapid ePlex® Respiratory Pathogen (RP) Panel testing of GenMark Diagnostics (Carlsbad, CA, USA) with regard to time to result, installed isolation precautions, and antibacterial/antiviral treatment. Between January and March 2017, 68 specimens of 64 patients suspected of an acute respiratory infection were tested with LDT and the ePlex® RP panel. The time to result was calculated as the time between sample reception and result reporting. Information regarding isolation and antibacterial/antiviral treatment was obtained from the patient records. Thirty specimens tested LDT positive (47%) and 29 ePlex® RP panel positive (45%). The median time to result was 27.1 h (range 6.5–96.6) for LDT versus 3.4 h (range 1.5–23.6) for the RP panel, p-value < 0.001. In 14 out of 30 patients, isolation was discontinued based on the ePlex® RP panel results, saving 21 isolation days. ePlex® RP panel test results were available approximately one day ahead of the LDT results in the 19 patients receiving antiviral/antibacterial treatment. In addition, two bacterial pathogens, not requested by the physician, were detected using the RP panel. Analysis of respiratory infections with the ePlex® RP panel resulted in a significant decrease in time to result, enabling a reduction in isolation days in half of the patients. Furthermore, syndromic RP panel testing increased the identification of causative pathogens.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5816761
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58167612018-02-27 Clinical implications of rapid ePlex® Respiratory Pathogen Panel testing compared to laboratory-developed real-time PCR van Rijn, Anneloes L. Nijhuis, Roel H. T. Bekker, Vincent Groeneveld, Geert H. Wessels, Els Feltkamp, Mariet C. W. Claas, Eric C. J. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Original Article Rapid diagnosis of respiratory infections is of great importance for adequate isolation and treatment. Due to the batch-wise testing, laboratory-developed real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays (LDT) often result in a time to result of one day. Here, LDT was compared with rapid ePlex® Respiratory Pathogen (RP) Panel testing of GenMark Diagnostics (Carlsbad, CA, USA) with regard to time to result, installed isolation precautions, and antibacterial/antiviral treatment. Between January and March 2017, 68 specimens of 64 patients suspected of an acute respiratory infection were tested with LDT and the ePlex® RP panel. The time to result was calculated as the time between sample reception and result reporting. Information regarding isolation and antibacterial/antiviral treatment was obtained from the patient records. Thirty specimens tested LDT positive (47%) and 29 ePlex® RP panel positive (45%). The median time to result was 27.1 h (range 6.5–96.6) for LDT versus 3.4 h (range 1.5–23.6) for the RP panel, p-value < 0.001. In 14 out of 30 patients, isolation was discontinued based on the ePlex® RP panel results, saving 21 isolation days. ePlex® RP panel test results were available approximately one day ahead of the LDT results in the 19 patients receiving antiviral/antibacterial treatment. In addition, two bacterial pathogens, not requested by the physician, were detected using the RP panel. Analysis of respiratory infections with the ePlex® RP panel resulted in a significant decrease in time to result, enabling a reduction in isolation days in half of the patients. Furthermore, syndromic RP panel testing increased the identification of causative pathogens. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017-12-08 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5816761/ /pubmed/29222697 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-017-3151-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Article
van Rijn, Anneloes L.
Nijhuis, Roel H. T.
Bekker, Vincent
Groeneveld, Geert H.
Wessels, Els
Feltkamp, Mariet C. W.
Claas, Eric C. J.
Clinical implications of rapid ePlex® Respiratory Pathogen Panel testing compared to laboratory-developed real-time PCR
title Clinical implications of rapid ePlex® Respiratory Pathogen Panel testing compared to laboratory-developed real-time PCR
title_full Clinical implications of rapid ePlex® Respiratory Pathogen Panel testing compared to laboratory-developed real-time PCR
title_fullStr Clinical implications of rapid ePlex® Respiratory Pathogen Panel testing compared to laboratory-developed real-time PCR
title_full_unstemmed Clinical implications of rapid ePlex® Respiratory Pathogen Panel testing compared to laboratory-developed real-time PCR
title_short Clinical implications of rapid ePlex® Respiratory Pathogen Panel testing compared to laboratory-developed real-time PCR
title_sort clinical implications of rapid eplex® respiratory pathogen panel testing compared to laboratory-developed real-time pcr
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5816761/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29222697
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-017-3151-0
work_keys_str_mv AT vanrijnanneloesl clinicalimplicationsofrapideplexrespiratorypathogenpaneltestingcomparedtolaboratorydevelopedrealtimepcr
AT nijhuisroelht clinicalimplicationsofrapideplexrespiratorypathogenpaneltestingcomparedtolaboratorydevelopedrealtimepcr
AT bekkervincent clinicalimplicationsofrapideplexrespiratorypathogenpaneltestingcomparedtolaboratorydevelopedrealtimepcr
AT groeneveldgeerth clinicalimplicationsofrapideplexrespiratorypathogenpaneltestingcomparedtolaboratorydevelopedrealtimepcr
AT wesselsels clinicalimplicationsofrapideplexrespiratorypathogenpaneltestingcomparedtolaboratorydevelopedrealtimepcr
AT feltkampmarietcw clinicalimplicationsofrapideplexrespiratorypathogenpaneltestingcomparedtolaboratorydevelopedrealtimepcr
AT claasericcj clinicalimplicationsofrapideplexrespiratorypathogenpaneltestingcomparedtolaboratorydevelopedrealtimepcr