Partial comparison of the NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel Assay with the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Panel Fast Assay V2 and singleplex real-time polymerase chain reaction for detection of respiratory pathogens

Diagnostic accuracy of multiplex respiratory pathogen panels for influenza or respiratory syncytial virus infections: systematic review and meta-analysis

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza viruses are important global causes of morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the Luminex NxTAG respiratory pathogen panels (RPPs)™ (index) against other RPPs (comparator) for detection of RSV and influenza viruses. Studies comparing human clinical respiratory samples tested with the index and at least one comparator test were included. A random-effect latent class meta-analysis was performed to assess the specificity and sensitivity of the index test for RSV and influenza. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Ten studies were included. For RSV, predicted sensitivity was 99% (95% credible interval [CrI] 96-100%) and specificity 100% (95% CrI 98-100%). For influenza A and B, predicted sensitivity was 97% (95% CrI 89-100) and 98% (95% CrI 88-100) respectively; specificity 100% (95% CrI 99-100) and 100% (95% CrI 99-100), respectively. Evidence was low certainty. Although index sensitivity and specificity were excellent, comparators' performance varied. Further research with clear patient recruitment strategies could ascertain performance across different populations.Protocol Registration: Prospero CRD42021272062.

Comparative Performance of the Luminex NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel, GenMark eSensor Respiratory Viral Panel, and BioFire FilmArray Respiratory Panel

This study compares three of the most inclusive and widely used panels for respiratory syndromic testing in the United States, namely, Luminex NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel (RPP), BioFire FilmArray Respiratory Panel (RP), and GenMark eSensor Respiratory Viral Panel (RVP). We compared the three assays using nasopharyngeal swab samples (n = 350) collected from symptomatic patients (n = 329) in the pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era. There was no significant difference in the overall accuracies of BioFire and Luminex assays (P = 0.6171); however, significant differences were found between BioFire and GenMark (P = 0.0003) and between GenMark and Luminex (P = 0.0009). The positive percent agreement of the BioFire RP assay was 94.1%, compared to 97.3% for GenMark RVP and 96.5% for Luminex RPP. Overall negative percent agreement values were high for all three assays, i.e., 99.9% for BioFire and Luminex and 99.5% for GenMark. The three assays were equivalent for adenovirus, human metapneumovirus, influenza A, and respiratory syncytial virus. Increased false-positive results were seen with BioFire for the endemic coronaviruses and with GenMark for influenza B and the parainfluenza viruses.

IMPORTANCE Clinical laboratories have multiple choices when it is comes to syndromic respiratory testing. Here, the Luminex NxTAG RPP is compared to the BioFire FilmArray RP and GenMark eSensor RVP for overall and per-target accuracy. As new tests come to market, it is important to ascertain their performance characteristics, compared to other widely used in vitro diagnostic products.

Meta-Analysis of the Diagnostic Efficacy of the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel FAST v2 Assay for Respiratory Viral Infections

PURPOSE

Acute respiratory viral infections pose significant morbidity and mortality, making it essential to diagnose respiratory viral infections rapidly. In this study, the diagnostic efficacy of the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Virus Panel (RVP) FAST v2 test was evaluated on respiratory viral infections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Information was retrieved from electronic databases, including Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library, for systematic review. Studies that fulfilled predefined inclusion criteria were included. After the extraction of information, statistical software was utilized for quality evaluation, data analysis, and assessment of publication bias.

RESULTS

Eighty groups in fourfold tables from nine articles were included to perform statistical analyses. Therein, the mean specificity and mean sensitivity of Luminex xTAG RVP FAST v2 test for the detection of respiratory viral infections were 0.99 (0.98-0.99) and 0.88 (0.87-0.90), respectively. Additionally, the negative and positive likelihood ratios were 0.14 (0.11-0.19) and 87.42 (61.88-123.50), respectively. Moreover, the diagnostic odds ratio and area under the curve of summary receiver operating characteristic were 714.80 and 0.9886, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The Luminex xTAG RVP FAST v2 test could be a reliable and rapid diagnostic method for multiple respiratory viral infections.

Evaluation of Commercial Molecular Diagnostic Methods for Detection and Determination of Macrolide Resistance in Mycoplasma pneumoniae

We evaluated six commercial molecular tests targeting Mycoplasma pneumoniae, namely, the BioFire FilmArray respiratory panel (RP), the Meridian Alethia Mycoplasma Direct, the GenMark ePlex respiratory pathogen panel (RPP), the Luminex NxTAG RPP, the ELITech ELITe InGenius Mycoplasma MGB research use only (RUO) PCR, and the SpeeDx Resistance Plus MP assays. Laboratory-developed PCR assays at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were used as reference standards. Among 428 specimens, 212 were designated confirmed positives for M. pneumoniae The highest clinical sensitivities were found with the InGenius PCR (99.5%) and the FilmArray RP (98.1%). The Resistance Plus MP identified 93.3% of the confirmed-positive specimens, whereas 83.6, 64.6, and 55.7% were identified by the ePlex RPP, NxTAG RPP, and Mycoplasma Direct assays, respectively. There was no significant difference between the sensitivity of the reference methods and that of the FilmArray RP and InGenius assays, but the remaining four assays detected significantly fewer positive specimens (P < 0.05). Specificities of all assays were 99.5 to 100%. The Resistance Plus MP assay detected macrolide resistance in 27/33 specimens, resulting in a sensitivity of 81.8%. This study provides the first large-scale comparison of commercial molecular assays for detection of M. pneumoniae in the United States and identified clear differences among their performance. Additional studies are necessary to explore the impact of various test performances on patient outcome.

Multiplex Platforms for the Identification of Respiratory Pathogens: Are They Useful in Pediatric Clinical Practice?

Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are extremely common especially in the first year of life. Knowledge of the etiology of a RTI is essential to facilitate the appropriate management and the implementation of the most effective control measures. This perspective explains why laboratory methods that can identify pathogens in respiratory secretions have been developed over the course of many years. High-complexity multiplex panel assays that can simultaneously detect up to 20 viruses and up to four bacteria within a few hours have been marketed. However, are these platforms actually useful in pediatric clinical practice? In this manuscript, we showed that these platforms appear to be particularly important for epidemiological studies and clinical research. On the contrary, their routine use in pediatric clinical practice remains debatable. They can be used only in the hospital as they require specific equipment and laboratory technicians with considerable knowledge, training, and experience. Moreover, despite more sensitive and specific than other tests routinely used for respiratory pathogen identification, they do not offer significantly advantage for detection of the true etiology of a respiratory disease. Furthermore, knowledge of which virus is the cause of a respiratory disease is not useful from a therapeutic point of view unless influenza virus or respiratory syncytial virus are the infecting agents as effective drugs are available only for these pathogens. On the other hand, multiplex platforms can be justified in the presence of severe clinical manifestations, and in immunocompromised patients for whom specific treatment option can be available, particularly when they can be used simultaneously with platforms that allow identification of antimicrobial resistance to commonly used drugs. It is highly likely that these platforms, particularly those with high sensitivity and specificity and with low turnaround time, will become essential when new drugs effective and safe against most of the respiratory viruses will be available. Further studies on how to differentiate carriers from patients with true disease, as well as studies on the implications of coinfections and identification of antimicrobial resistance, are warranted.

Comparison of the Luminex NxTAG respiratory pathogen panel and a multiplex in-house real-time PCR panel for the detection of respiratory viruses in symptomatic patients

Purpose. To evaluate the Luminex NxTAG respiratory pathogen panel (NxTAG RPP) for the detection of respiratory viruses in clinical samples from patients with the symptoms of respiratory infection.Methodology. The NxTAG RPP was compared to an in-house multiplex real-time PCR panel (LDT) for the detection of respiratory viruses in 314 clinical samples from patients with the symptoms of respiratory infection.Results. Thirty-one samples were negative in both tests and 193 samples contained a single virus that was detected in both tests. Polymicrobial infections were detected in 74 samples, with 268 samples overall having concordant results in both assays, and there were a total of 51 discordant results in 44 samples. Two samples were invalid in the NxTAG RPP assay and were excluded from the final analysis. The overall agreement between the NxTAG RPP and LDT was very high, as indicated by the Kappa coefficients, which ranged from 0.85 for metapneumovirus up to 0.96 for RSV A, and the overall percentage agreement values of 96.2 % for enterovirus/rhinovirus and 100 % for influenza A, influenza B, PIV 4 and RSV B.Conclusion. The NxTAG RPP is a sensitive and specific test for the detection of respiratory viruses and the high sample throughput and low hands-on time make the NxTAG RPP assay suitable for screening clinical samples for respiratory pathogens.

Evaluation of NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel and Comparison with xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel Fast v2 and Film Array Respiratory Panel for Detecting Respiratory Pathogens in Nasopharyngeal Aspirates and Swine/Avian-Origin Influenza A Subtypes in Culture Isolates

This study evaluated a new multiplex kit, Luminex NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel, for respiratory pathogens and compared it with xTAG RVP Fast v2 and FilmArray Respiratory Panel using nasopharyngeal aspirate specimens and culture isolates of different swine/avian-origin influenza A subtypes (H2N2, H5N1, H7N9, H5N6, and H9N2). NxTAG RPP gave sensitivity of 95.2%, specificity of 99.6%, PPV of 93.5%, and NPV of 99.7%. NxTAG RPP, xTAG RVP, and FilmArray RP had highly concordant performance among each other for the detection of respiratory pathogens. The mean analytic sensitivity (TCID50/ml) of NxTAG RPP, xTAG RVP, and FilmArray RP for detection of swine/avian-origin influenza A subtype isolates was 0.7, 41.8, and 0.8, respectively. All three multiplex assays correctly typed and genotyped the influenza viruses, except for NxTAG RRP that could not distinguish H3N2 from H3N2v. Further investigation should be performed if H3N2v is suspected to be the cause of disease. Sensitive and specific laboratory diagnosis of all influenza A viruses subtypes is especially essential in certain epidemic regions, such as Southeast Asia. The results of this study should help clinical laboratory professionals to be aware of the different performances of commercially available molecular multiplex RT-PCR assays that are commonly adopted in many clinical diagnostic laboratories.

Additional molecular testing of saliva specimens improves the detection of respiratory viruses

Emerging infectious diseases in humans are often caused by respiratory viruses such as pandemic or avian influenza viruses and novel coronaviruses. Microbiological testing for respiratory viruses is important for patient management, infection control and epidemiological studies. Nasopharyngeal specimens are frequently tested, but their sensitivity is suboptimal. This study evaluated the incremental benefit of testing respiratory viruses in expectorated saliva using molecular assays. A total of 258 hospitalized adult patients with suspected respiratory infections were included. Their expectorated saliva was collected without the use of any special devices. In the first cohort of 159 patients whose nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPAs) tested positive for respiratory viruses during routine testing, the viral load was measured using quantitative reverse transcription PCR. Seventeen percent of the patients (27/159) had higher viral loads in the saliva than in the NPA. The second cohort consisted of 99 patients whose NPAs tested negative for respiratory viruses using a direct immunofluorescence assay. Their NPA and saliva specimens were additionally tested using multiplex PCR. In these patients, the concordance rate by multiplex PCR between NPA and saliva was 83.8%. Multiplex PCR detected viruses in saliva samples from 16 patients, of which nine (56.3%) had at least one virus that was not detected in the NPA. Decisions on antiviral or isolation precautions would be affected by salivary testing in six patients. Although NPAs have high viral loads and remain the specimen of choice for most patients with respiratory virus infections, supplementary molecular testing of saliva can improve the clinical management of these patients.

Comparison of Luminex NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel and xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel FAST Version 2 for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses

Owing to advancements in molecular diagnostics, recent years have seen an increasing number of laboratories adopting respiratory viral panels to detect respiratory pathogens. In December 2015, the NxTAG respiratory pathogen panel (NxTAG RPP) was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. We compared the clinical performance of this new assay with that of the xTAG respiratory viral panel (xTAG RVP) FAST v2 using 142 clinical samples and 12 external quality assessment samples. Discordant results were resolved by using a laboratory-developed respiratory viral panel. The NxTAG RPP achieved 100% concordant negative results and 86.6% concordant positive results. It detected one coronavirus 229E and eight influenza A/H3N2 viruses that were missed by the xTAG RVP FAST v2. On the other hand, the NxTAG RPP missed one enterovirus/rhinovirus and one metapneumovirus that were detected by FAST v2. Both panels correctly identified all the pathogens in the 12 external quality assessment samples. Overall, the NxTAG RPP demonstrated good diagnostic performance. Of note, it was better able to subtype the influenza A/H3N2 viruses compared with the xTAG RVP FAST v2.

The role of the NxTAG® respiratory pathogen panel assay and other multiplex platforms in clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

The advent of nucleic acid amplification tests has significantly improved the aetiologic diagnosis of respiratory infections. However, multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) can be technologically challenging. Areas covered: This paper reports the results of the main published studies on the NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel (RPP) and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of extensive use of multiplex assays in clinical practice. Expert commentary: Currently available data seem to indicate that routine use of multiplex assays, including NxTAG RPP Assay, should be recommended only when epidemiological data concerning circulation of viruses and bacteria have to be collected. Their use in clinical practice seems debatable. They have limited sensitivity and specificity at least in the identification of some infectious agents or, as in the case of NxTAG RPP, they have not been evaluated in a sufficient number of patients to allow definitive conclusions. In the future, the clinical relevance of multiplex assays, including NxTAG RPP, could significantly increase, mainly because a number of new antiviral agents effective against several respiratory viruses for which no drug is presently available will be marketed. In addition, it is highly likely that the efficiency of multiplex assays will be significantly improved.