Performance evaluation of a rapid molecular diagnostic, MultiCode based, sample-to-answer assay for the simultaneous detection of Influenza A, B and respiratory syncytial viruses

Summarizing Study Characteristics and Diagnostic Performance of Commercially Available Tests for Respiratory Syncytial Virus: A Scoping Literature Review in the COVID-19 Era

BACKGROUND

Nonpharmaceutical interventions to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 also decreased the spread of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza. Viral diagnostic testing in patients with respiratory tract infections (RTI) is a necessary tool for patient management; therefore, sensitive and specific tests are required. This scoping literature review aimed to summarize the study characteristics of commercially available sample-to-answer RSV tests.

CONTENT

PubMed and Embase were queried for studies reporting on the diagnostic performance of tests for RSV in patients with RTI (published January 2005-January 2021). Information on study design, patient and setting characteristics, and published diagnostic performance of RSV tests were extracted from 77 studies that met predefined inclusion criteria. A literature gap was identified for studies of RSV tests conducted in adult-only populations (5.3% of total subrecords) and in outpatient (7.5%) or household (0.8%) settings. Overall, RSV tests with analytical time >30 min had higher published sensitivity (62.5%-100%) vs RSV tests with analytical time ≤30 min (25.7%-100%); this sensitivity range could be partially attributed to the different modalities (antigen vs molecular) used. Molecular-based rapid RSV tests had higher published sensitivity (66.7%-100%) and specificity (94.3%-100%) than antigen-based RSV tests (sensitivity: 25.7%-100%; specificity:80.3%-100%).

SUMMARY

This scoping review reveals a paucity of literature on studies of RSV tests in specific populations and settings, highlighting the need for further assessments. Considering the implications of these results in the current pandemic landscape, the authors preliminarily suggest adopting molecular-based RSV tests for first-line use in these settings.

Year-to-year variation in attack rates could result in underpowered RSV vaccine efficacy trials

OBJECTIVE

Year-to-year variation of respiratory viruses may result in lower attack rates than expected. We aimed to illustrate the impact of year-to-year variation in attack rates on the likelihood of demonstrating vaccine efficacy (VE) .

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We considered an individually randomized maternal vaccine trial against respiratory syncytial virus-associated hospitalisations (RSVH). For 10 RSVH per 1,000 infants, sample size to have 80% power for true VE of 50% and 70% was 9,846 and 4,424 participants. We reported power to show VE for varying attack rates, selected to reflect realistic year-to-year variation using observational studies. Eight scenarios including varying number of countries and seasons were developed to assess the influence of these trial parameters.

RESULTS

Including up to three seasons decreased the width of the interquartile range for power. Including more seasons concentrated statistical power closer to 80%. Least powered trials had higher statistical power with more seasons. In all scenarios, at least half of the trials had <80% power. For three-season trials, increasing the sample size by 10% reduced the percentage of underpowered trials to less than one-quarter of trials.

CONCLUSION

Year-to-year variation in RSV attack rates should be accounted for during trial design. Mitigation strategies include recruiting over more seasons, or adaptive trial designs.

Point of care testing for infectious disease: ownership and quality

Traditionally, diagnosis of acute infections has been organism-growth based, which makes timely and actionable infection diagnosis a major challenge. In addition, traditional microbial detection methods, including direct microscopy, are not suited for outsourcing to clinical, non-laboratory-educated personnel. Optimal management of patients with known or suspected clinical infections, such as targeted (or no) antimicrobial treatment and correct use of single room contact isolation facilities, requires rapid identification of the causative infectious microorganism. We are now facing a new disruptive paradigm shift in diagnostic microbiology. The availability of small-footprint robust instruments with easy-to-use assay kits allows non-laboratory-trained nurses and physicians to perform high-quality molecular diagnostics in a near-patient setting with results available in <30 minutes. This technology is currently breaking the centralized laboratory monopoly on the delivery of gold-standard clinical microbiology diagnostics. There is clear potential for huge positive impacts on clinical patient management and antibiotic stewardship, especially in settings where access to timely laboratory test results is not possible, but there are also potentially huge risks. Moving diagnostic testing away from the controlled diagnostic laboratory environment will lead to risks such as increased risk of inappropriate use of the diagnostic tests, insufficient training of staff performing the tests, incorrect interpretation of the test results, lack of quality control procedures, failure to capture test results in electronic patient records and compromised local as well as national surveillance. To reap the upside and avoid the downside of point-of-care infectious disease testing, the diagnostic laboratory needs to maintain oversight, and each institution must have a clear strategy for implementation and execution. If we fail, the risks could outweigh the benefits.

Herpesviruses in Reptiles

Since the 1970s, several species of herpesviruses have been identified and associated with significant diseases in reptiles. Earlier discoveries placed these viruses into different taxonomic groups on the basis of morphological and biological characteristics, while advancements in molecular methods have led to more recent descriptions of novel reptilian herpesviruses, as well as providing insight into the phylogenetic relationship of these viruses. Herpesvirus infections in reptiles are often characterised by non-pathognomonic signs including stomatitis, encephalitis, conjunctivitis, hepatitis and proliferative lesions. With the exception of fibropapillomatosis in marine turtles, the absence of specific clinical signs has fostered misdiagnosis and underreporting of the actual disease burden in reptilian populations and hampered potential investigations that could lead to the effective control of these diseases. In addition, complex life histories, sampling bias and poor monitoring systems have limited the assessment of the impact of herpesvirus infections in wild populations and captive collections. Here we review the current published knowledge of the taxonomy, pathogenesis, pathology and epidemiology of reptilian herpesviruses.

Clinical performance and sample freeze-thaw stability of the cobas®6800 SARS-CoV-2 assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs and lower respiratory specimens

•

Naso/oropharygeal swabs and deep respiratory samples, but not feces, show good clinical performance in Cobas®6800 SARS-CoV-2 assay.

•

No significant difference was found after one freeze-thaw cycler with or without lysis buffer.

•

Time-to-result is lower using Cobas®6800 SARS-CoV-2 assay compared to LDA.

Introduction

Studies describing the performance characteristics of the cobas®6800 system for SARS-CoV-2 detection in deep respiratory specimens and freeze-thaw stability are limited. The current study compares the clinical performance of the automated SARS-CoV-2 assay on the cobas®6800 system to a lab-developed assay (LDA) and the cobas impact of freeze-thawing combined with lysis buffer.

Methods

Both retrospective and prospectively selected deep respiratory samples and oro- and nasopharyngeal samples in either E-swab® or GLY- were tested using the SARS-CoV-2 assay on the cobas®6800 System and compared to a lab developed assay. Additonally, SARS-CoV-2 RNA stability was assessed after one freeze-thaw cycle with or without lysis buffer.

Results

In total, 221 (58.3 %) oro- and nasopharyngeal swabs, 131 (34.6 %) deep respiratory specimens, and n = 25 (6.6 %) swabs of unknown origin were included to study clinical performance. Only 4 samples gave discrepant results, all being positive in the LDA and not the cobas®6800 system. For stability testing, 66 samples without and 110 with lysis buffer were included. No clinically significant difference was found in test results after one freeze-thaw cycle and addition of lysis buffer.

Conclusion

Based on our findings, the cobas®6800 SARS-CoV-2 RNA assay yielded similar results as the LDA in oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs and deep respiratory specimens. Moreover, the cobas®6800 SARS-CoV-2 RNA assay yielded similar results before and after a freeze-thaw cycle, with better preservation of low viral loads in lysis buffer.

Performance evaluation of the Panther Fusion® respiratory tract panel

•

Clinical specificity of Panther Fusion® is between 96 %–100 %, compared to LDT.

•

Clinical sensitivity Panther Fusion® is between 71.9 %–100 %, compared to LDT.

•

Overall linear regression showed good correlations between LDT and Panther Fusion® for all viruses, except RV and PIV-4.

•

The Panther Fusion® provides a random-access system with continuous loading and shorter sample-to-answer times compared to LDT.

Background

Respiratory tract infections are among the most common infections during winter season. Rapid diagnostics is required for clinical decision making regarding isolation of patients and appropriate therapy.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the analytical and clinical performance characteristics of the Panther Fusion® respiratory panel using published laboratory-developed real-time PCR assays (LDT).

Study design

Analytical sensitivity of Panther Fusion® Flu A/B/RSV was assessed by testing dilutions of cell culture isolates. Clinical performance assessment included the complete Panther Fusion® respiratory panel (Flu-A/B/RSV, PIV 1-4 and AdV/hMPV/RV) and consisted of a retrospective and a prospective study-arm. The retrospective evaluation included 201, stored (−80 °C) samples collected between February 2006 and January 2017. Prospective evaluation was performed on 1045 unselected pretreated respiratory tract samples from patients presented to our hospital between November 2017 and May 2018.

Results

Analytical sensitivity was generally slightly lower for the Panther Fusion® assays. Clinical specificity and sensitivity was between 96 %–100 % and 71.9 %–100 %, respectively. Discrepant results were found in 146 samples of which 88 samples tested LDT positive / Panther Fusion® negative and 58 samples were LDT negative / Panther Fusion® positive. A total of ten discrepant samples with Ct-values <30 were sequenced to confirm the presence of 7 RV-C not-detected by LDT and 1 RV-A and 2 ADV-2 not detected by Panther Fusion®.

Conclusions

The Panther Fusion® provides a random-access system with continuous loading and much shorter sample-to-answer times compared to LDT, albeit with a slightly less clinical sensitivity compared to the LDT.

Migrating a lab-developed MERS-CoV real-time PCR to 3 "Sample to Result" systems: experiences on optimization and validation

The goal of the study was to adapt our Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) lab-developed test (LDT) to 3 “Sample to Result” (S2R) systems: BD MAX (BD), ELITe InGenius (ELITechGroup), and ARIES (Luminex).

The BD MAX and InGenius system allowed use of lab-developed primers and TaqMan probes, while ARIES required conversion to MultiCode primers for melting curve analysis. Each device required ≤1 day of training and assay optimization. No discordant results were noted after analysis of 32 External Quality Control (EQC) samples. On a 10-fold dilution series of a MERS-CoV–positive EQC sample, InGenius obtained the highest detection rate. Laboratory technicians rated the ARIES as the user-friendliest. It also required the least hands-on time. BD MAX had the lowest turnaround time and highest throughput.

While each device had distinguishing system properties with associated (dis)advantages, the 3 S2R systems were comparable in terms of assay development and validation.

Parallel Validation of Three Molecular Devices for Simultaneous Detection and Identification of Influenza A and B and Respiratory Syncytial Viruses

Rapid identification of respiratory pathogens, such as influenza virus A (FluA), influenza virus B (FluB), and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), reduces unnecessary antimicrobial use and enhances infection control practice. We performed a comparative evaluation of three molecular methods: (i) the Aries Flu A/B & RSV, (ii) the Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV, and (iii) the Cobas Flu A/B & RSV assays. The clinical performances of the three methods were evaluated using 200 remnant nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens against a combined reference standard. The limits of detection (LODs) were determined using FluA, FluB, and RSV control strains with known titers. The 95% LODs were between 1.702 and 0.0003 50% tissue culture infective dose (TCID₅₀), with no significant differences revealed among the three assays. Perfect qualitative detection agreement was obtained in the reproducibility study. The Cobas assay failed at the first run on 13 clinical specimens, resulting in an invalid rate of 6.5%. The sensitivities and specificities for all assays were 96.0 to 100.0% and 99.3 to 100% for all three viruses. For on-demand single-specimen and batched 12-specimen workflows, the test turnaround times were 115.5 and 128.8 min for the Aries assay (12 sample capacity), 34.2 and 44.2 min for the Xpress assay (16 sample capacity), and 21.0 and 254.4 min for the Cobas assay (one instrument), respectively. In summary, the Aries, Xpress, and Cobas Liat assays demonstrated excellent sensitivities and specificities for simultaneous detection and identification of FluA, FluB, and RSV from NPS specimens in cancer patients. Test turnaround time was significantly shorter on the Xpress when instrument scalability is unlimited.

The performance of Luminex ARIES® Flu A/B & RSV and Cepheid Xpert® Flu/RSV XC for the detection of influenza A, influenza B, and respiratory syncytial virus in prospective patient samples

BACKGROUND

The demand for rapid, accurate viral testing has increased the number of assays available for the detection of viral pathogens. One of the newest FDA cleared platforms is the Luminex ARIES^® Flu A/B & RSV, which is a fully automated, real-time PCR-based assay used for detection of influenza A, influenza B, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

OBJECTIVES

We sought to compare the performance of Luminex ARIES^® Flu A/B & RSV assay to the Cepheid Xpert^® Flu/RSV XC assay for rapid Flu and RSV testing.

STUDY DESIGN

A series of consecutive nasopharyngeal specimens received in the clinical microbiology laboratory during peak influenza season at a major academic center in Chicago, IL, were prospectively tested, using both the ARIES^® Flu A/B & RSV and Xpert^® Flu/RSV XC assays, side by side. Discrepant results were tested on the BioFire FilmArray^® Respiratory Panel for resolution.

RESULTS

A total of 143 consecutive nasopharyngeal specimens, obtained from patients ranging from six months to ninety-three years in age were received between January 1st, 2017 and March 21st, 2017. There was 96.6% agreement between the two assays for detection influenza A, 100% agreement for detection influenza B and RSV, and 98.9% agreement for negative results. The Xpert^® Flu/RSV XC performed with an average turn-around time of approximately 60min, compared to the ARIES^® Flu A/B & RSV of approximately 120min. Both assays were equally easy to perform, with a similar amount of hands-on technologist time for each platform.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, these results indicate that both tests are comparable in terms of result agreement and technical ease-of-use. The Xpert^® Flu/RSV XC assay did produce results with less turn-around-time, approximately 60min quicker than the ARIES^® Flu A/B & RSV.

Multicenter Clinical Evaluation of the Luminex Aries Flu A/B & RSV Assay for Pediatric and Adult Respiratory Tract Specimens

Influenza A and B viruses and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) are three common viruses implicated in seasonal respiratory tract infections and are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in adults and children worldwide. In recent years, an increasing number of commercial molecular tests have become available to diagnose respiratory viral infections. The Luminex Aries Flu A/B & RSV assay is a fully automated sample-to-answer molecular diagnostic assay for the detection of influenza A, influenza B, and RSV. The clinical performance of the Aries Flu A/B & RSV assay was prospectively evaluated in comparison to that of the Luminex xTAG respiratory viral panel (RVP) at four North American clinical institutions over a 2-year period. Of the 2,479 eligible nasopharyngeal swab specimens included in the prospective study, 2,371 gave concordant results between the assays. One hundred eight specimens generated results that were discordant with those from the xTAG RVP and were further analyzed by bidirectional sequencing. Final clinical sensitivity values of the Aries Flu A/B & RSV assay were 98.1% for influenza A virus, 98.0% for influenza B virus, and 97.7% for RSV. Final clinical specificities for all three pathogens ranged from 98.6% to 99.8%. Due to the low prevalence of influenza B, an additional 40 banked influenza B-positive specimens were tested at the participating clinical laboratories and were all accurately detected by the Aries Flu A/B & RSV assay. This study demonstrates that the Aries Flu A/B & RSV assay is a suitable method for rapid and accurate identification of these causative pathogens in respiratory infections.