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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Butt, S.A., Maceira, V.P., McCallen, M.E., Stellrecht, K.A.
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