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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |