Cargando…
Comparison of three commercial RT-PCR systems for the detection of respiratory viruses
BACKGROUND: Due to the insensitivity of rapid tests for respiratory viruses, nucleic acid amplification tests are quickly becoming the standard of care. OBJECTIVES AND STUDY DESIGN: The performance of the FilmArray Respiratory Panel (RP) and Verigene RV+ (RV+) were compared in a retrospective analys...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier B.V.
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172935/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25183359 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2014.08.010 |
_version_ | 1783524355287810048 |
---|---|
author | Butt, S.A. Maceira, V.P. McCallen, M.E. Stellrecht, K.A. |
author_facet | Butt, S.A. Maceira, V.P. McCallen, M.E. Stellrecht, K.A. |
author_sort | Butt, S.A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Due to the insensitivity of rapid tests for respiratory viruses, nucleic acid amplification tests are quickly becoming the standard of care. OBJECTIVES AND STUDY DESIGN: The performance of the FilmArray Respiratory Panel (RP) and Verigene RV+ (RV+) were compared in a retrospective analysis of 89 clinical specimens previously determined to be positive for the following viruses by our test of record, Prodesse (Pro): influenza A (29, FluA), influenza B (13, FluB), respiratory syncytial virus (12, RSV), human metapneumovirus (10, hMPV), parainfluenza (14, PIV), and adenovirus (10, AdV). Samples positive for influenza A, B or RSV were tested by both methods, while the remainder were tested by RP only. True positives were defined as positive by two or more assays. RESULTS: Limit of detection (LOD) analyses demonstrated Pro had the lowest LOD for all FluA strains tested, PIV1, PIV2 and AdV; RV+ had the lowest LOD for FluB; and RP had the lowest LOD for RSV, PIV3 and hMPV. Of the 55 samples tested by RV+, all 54 true positive samples were positive by RV+. Of the 89 samples tested by RP, 85 of the 88 true positive samples were positive by RP. From these results, the overall sensitivities for influenza A, B and RSV were 100% and 98% for RV+ and RP, respectively. The overall sensitivity of RP for all viruses was 97%. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, these systems demonstrated excellent performance. Furthermore, each system has benefits which will ensure they will all have a niche in a clinical laboratory. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7172935 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Elsevier B.V. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-71729352020-04-22 Comparison of three commercial RT-PCR systems for the detection of respiratory viruses Butt, S.A. Maceira, V.P. McCallen, M.E. Stellrecht, K.A. J Clin Virol Article BACKGROUND: Due to the insensitivity of rapid tests for respiratory viruses, nucleic acid amplification tests are quickly becoming the standard of care. OBJECTIVES AND STUDY DESIGN: The performance of the FilmArray Respiratory Panel (RP) and Verigene RV+ (RV+) were compared in a retrospective analysis of 89 clinical specimens previously determined to be positive for the following viruses by our test of record, Prodesse (Pro): influenza A (29, FluA), influenza B (13, FluB), respiratory syncytial virus (12, RSV), human metapneumovirus (10, hMPV), parainfluenza (14, PIV), and adenovirus (10, AdV). Samples positive for influenza A, B or RSV were tested by both methods, while the remainder were tested by RP only. True positives were defined as positive by two or more assays. RESULTS: Limit of detection (LOD) analyses demonstrated Pro had the lowest LOD for all FluA strains tested, PIV1, PIV2 and AdV; RV+ had the lowest LOD for FluB; and RP had the lowest LOD for RSV, PIV3 and hMPV. Of the 55 samples tested by RV+, all 54 true positive samples were positive by RV+. Of the 89 samples tested by RP, 85 of the 88 true positive samples were positive by RP. From these results, the overall sensitivities for influenza A, B and RSV were 100% and 98% for RV+ and RP, respectively. The overall sensitivity of RP for all viruses was 97%. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, these systems demonstrated excellent performance. Furthermore, each system has benefits which will ensure they will all have a niche in a clinical laboratory. Elsevier B.V. 2014-11 2014-08-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7172935/ /pubmed/25183359 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2014.08.010 Text en Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. |
spellingShingle | Article Butt, S.A. Maceira, V.P. McCallen, M.E. Stellrecht, K.A. Comparison of three commercial RT-PCR systems for the detection of respiratory viruses |
title | Comparison of three commercial RT-PCR systems for the detection of respiratory viruses |
title_full | Comparison of three commercial RT-PCR systems for the detection of respiratory viruses |
title_fullStr | Comparison of three commercial RT-PCR systems for the detection of respiratory viruses |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of three commercial RT-PCR systems for the detection of respiratory viruses |
title_short | Comparison of three commercial RT-PCR systems for the detection of respiratory viruses |
title_sort | comparison of three commercial rt-pcr systems for the detection of respiratory viruses |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172935/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25183359 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2014.08.010 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT buttsa comparisonofthreecommercialrtpcrsystemsforthedetectionofrespiratoryviruses AT maceiravp comparisonofthreecommercialrtpcrsystemsforthedetectionofrespiratoryviruses AT mccallenme comparisonofthreecommercialrtpcrsystemsforthedetectionofrespiratoryviruses AT stellrechtka comparisonofthreecommercialrtpcrsystemsforthedetectionofrespiratoryviruses |