Evaluation of Allplex Respiratory Panel 1/2/3 Multiplex Real-Time PCR Assays for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses with Influenza A Virus subtyping

Molecular subtypes of Adenovirus-associated acute respiratory infection outbreak in children in Northern Vietnam and risk factors of more severe cases

BACKGROUND

Under the pressure of Human Adenovirus (HAdV)-associated acute respiratory infection (ARI) outbreak in children in Northern Vietnam in the end of 2022, this study was initiated to identify the HAdV subtype(s) and examine the associated clinical features and risk factors of more severe cases.

METHODS

This study evaluated pediatric patients with ARI which had tested positive for HAdV between October and November 2022 using a multiplex real-time PCR panel. Nasopharyngeal aspirates or nasal swab samples were used for sequencing to identify HAdV subtypes. Clinical data were collected retrospectively.

RESULTS

Among 97 successfully sequenced samples, the predominant subtypes were HAdV-B3 (83%), HAdV-B7 (16%) and HAdV-C2 (1%). Lower respiratory manifestations were found in 25% of the patients of which 5% were diagnosed with severe pneumonia. There was no significant association between HAdV subtype and clinical features except higher white blood cell and neutrophil counts in those detected with HAdV-B3 (p<0.001). Co-detection of HAdV with ≥1 other respiratory viruses was found in 13/24(54%) of those with lower respiratory manifestations and 4/5(80%) of those with severe pneumonia (odds ratio (95% confidence interval) vs. those without = 10.74 (2.83, 48.17) and 19.44 (2.12, 492.73) respectively after adjusting for age, sex, birth delivery method, day of disease).

CONCLUSION

HAdV-B3 and HAdV-B7 were predominant in the outbreak. Co-detection of HAdV together with other respiratory viruses was a strong risk factor for lower respiratory tract illnesses and severe pneumonia. The findings advocate the advantages of multi-factor microbial panels for the diagnosis and prognosis of ARI in children.

Pre-Pandemic Distribution of Bacterial Species in Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens from Pediatric and Adult Patients Detected via RT-PCR Using the Allplex Respiratory Panel

Background: Recently, panel-based molecular diagnostics for the simultaneous detection of respiratory viruses and bacteria in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens have been highlighted. We identified the distribution of bacterial species in NPS specimens collected from pediatric and adult patients by employing RT-PCR (Allplex respiratory panel 4, RP4, Seegene) to estimate its applicability in a panel-based assay for detecting respiratory viruses. Methods: We used 271 and 173 NPS specimens from pediatric and adult patients, respectively. The results of the Allplex RP4 panel using NPS (NPS-RP4) from adult patients were compared with those of the Seeplex PneumoBacter ACE Detection assay (Seegene), which used sputum for testing (sputum-Seeplex). Results: A total of 147 specimens (54.2%) were positive for the NPS-RP4 panel in pediatric patients. There were 94, 77, 10, 3, 3, and 2 specimens that were positive for Haemophilus influenzae (HI), Streptococcus pneumoniae (SP), Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MP), Chlamydia pneumoniae (CP), Bordetella pertussis (BP), and B. parapertussis (BPP), respectively. Among 173 adult patients, 39 specimens (22.5%) were positive in the NPS-RP4. Thirty specimens were positive for HI, and 13 were positive for SP. One specimen tested positive for both MP and Legionella pneumophila (LP). CP, BP, and BPP results were all negative. However, 126 specimens (72.8%) had positive results with sputum-Seeplex (99 SP, 59 HI, three LP, and two MP), and the overall percentage of agreement between the two assays was 39.3% in the adult patients. Conclusions: Bacterial species in NPS from more than half of pediatric patients were detected. Performing the Allplex RP4 assay with NPS revealed additional respiratory bacteria that are not detected in current clinical practices, which do not include bacterial testing, demanding the use of sputum specimens. However, the use of NPS showed low agreement with standard assays using sputum in adult patients. Thus, more research is needed to develop a reliable RT-PCR method using NPS specimens in adult patients.

Developing a Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Assay for the Rapid Detection of Seven Respiratory Viruses including SARS-CoV-2

Background and Objectives: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), continues to be a pandemic even in 2022. As the initial symptoms of COVID-19 overlap with those of infections from other respiratory viruses, an accurate and rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 is essential for administering appropriate treatment to patients. Currently, the most widely used method for detecting respiratory viruses is based on real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and includes reverse-transcription real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). However, RT-qPCR assays require sophisticated facilities and are time-consuming. This study aimed to develop a real-time quantitative loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-qLAMP) assay and compare its analytical performance with RT-qPCR. Materials and Methods: A total of 315 nasopharyngeal swabs from patients with symptoms of respiratory infections were included in this study. A primary screening of the specimens was performed using RT-qPCR. RNA/DNA from standard strains for respiratory viruses and heat-inactivated preparations of standard strains for SARS-CoV-2 were used to evaluate the accuracy and target specificity of the RT-qLAMP assay. Results: We successfully developed an RT-qLAMP assay for seven respiratory viruses: respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) A, RSV B, adenovirus, influenza (Flu) A (H1N1 and H3N2), Flu B, and SARS-CoV-2. RT-qLAMP was performed in a final reaction volume of 9.6 µL. No cross-reactivity was observed. Compared with the RT-PCR results, the sensitivity and specificity of the RT-qLAMP assay were 95.1% and 100%, respectively. The agreement between the two methods was 97.1%. The median amplification time to RT-qLAMP positivity was 22:34 min (range: 6:80–47:98 min). Conclusions: The RT-qLAMP assay requires a small number of reagents and samples and is performed with an isothermal reaction. This study established a fast, simple, and sensitive test that can be applied to point-of-care testing devices to facilitate the detection of respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2.

Comparative Evaluation of Allplex Respiratory Panels 1, 2, 3, and BioFire FilmArray Respiratory Panel for the Detection of Respiratory Infections

Multiplex nucleic acid amplification assays that simultaneously detect multiple respiratory pathogens in a single nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimen are widely used for rapid clinical diagnostics. We evaluated Allplex Respiratory Panel (RP) 1, 2, 3, and the BioFire FilmArray RP assay for detecting respiratory pathogens from NPS specimens. In all, 181 NPS specimens obtained from patients suspected of having respiratory infections during the non-influenza season (August–December 2019) were included. The Allplex RP 1, 2, and 3 detected 154 samples positive for respiratory viruses, whereas the BioFire FilmArray detected viruses in 98 samples. Co-infection with two or more viruses was detected in 41 and 17 NPS specimens by Allplex RP and the BioFire FilmArray RP, respectively. For adenoviruses, Allplex RP 1 detected 31 specimens, compared to 34 by the BioFire FilmArray. In all, 64 NPS specimens were positive for human enterovirus (HEV) and human rhinovirus (HRV) on the Allplex RP, in contrast to 39 HEV/HRV on the BioFire FilmArray. The parainfluenza virus (PIV-1–4) detection rate differed between the two systems. Most discrepant results were observed for NPS specimens with high cycle threshold values obtained by Allplex RP. This study showed concordant performance of the Allplex RP 1, 2, 3, and the BioFire FilmArray RP for the simultaneous detection of multiple respiratory viruses.

Cepheid Xpert® Flu/RSV and Seegene Allplex™ RP1 show high diagnostic agreement for the detection of influenza A/B and respiratory syncytial viruses in clinical practice

Background

Molecular assays based on reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) provide reliable results for the detection of respiratory pathogens, although diagnostic agreement varies. This study determined the agreement between the RT‐PCR assays (Xpert^® Flu/RSV vs Allplex^™ RP1) in detecting influenza A, influenza B, and respiratory syncytial viruses (RSVs) in clinical practice.

Methods

We retrospectively identified 914 patient encounters where testing with both Xpert^® Flu/RSV and Allplex^™ RP1 was undertaken between October 2015 and September 2019 in seven hospitals across New South Wales, Australia. The diagnostic agreement of the two assays was evaluated using positive percent agreement, negative percent agreement, and prevalence and bias‐adjusted kappa.

Results

The positive percent agreement was 95.1% for influenza A, 87.5% for influenza B, and 77.8% for RSV. The negative percent agreement was 99.4% for influenza A, 99.9% for influenza B, and 100% for RSV. The prevalence and bias‐adjusted kappa was 0.98 for influenza A, 0.99 for influenza B, and 0.97 for RSV. In a sensitivity analysis, the positive percent agreement values were significantly higher during the non‐influenza season than the influenza season for influenza B and RSV.

Conclusions

The Xpert^® Flu/RSV and Allplex^™ RP1 demonstrated a high diagnostic agreement for all three viruses assessed. The seasonal variation in the positive percent agreement of the two assays for influenza B and RSV may have been due to lower numbers assessed, variability in the virology of infections outside the peak season, or changes in the physiology of the infected host in different seasons.

Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Laboratory Medicine: Adherence to Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015

Background

Poor reporting quality in diagnostic accuracy studies hampers an adequate judgment of the validity of the study. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was published to improve the reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. This study aimed to evaluate the adherence of diagnostic accuracy studies published in Annals of Laboratory Medicine (ALM) to STARD 2015 and to identify directions for improvement in the reporting quality of these studies.

Methods

Two independent authors assessed articles published in ALM between 2012–2018 for compliance with 30 STARD 2015 checklist items to identify all eligible diagnostic accuracy studies published during this period. We included 66 diagnostic accuracy studies. A total of the fulfilled STARD items were calculated, and adherence was analyzed on an individual-item basis.

Results

The overall mean±SD number of STARD items reported for the included studies was 11.2±2.7. Only five (7.6%) studies adhered to more than 50% of the 30 items. No study satisfied more than 80% of the items. Large variability in adherence to reporting standards was detected across items, ranging from 0% to 100%.

Conclusions

Adherence to STARD 2015 is suboptimal among diagnostic accuracy studies published in ALM. Our study emphasizes the necessity of adherence to STARD to improve the reporting quality of future diagnostic accuracy studies to be published in ALM.

Validation of the Seegene RV15 multiplex PCR for the detection of influenza A subtypes and influenza B lineages during national influenza surveillance in hospitalized adults

Background. The Serious Outcomes Surveillance Network of the Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN SOS) has been performing active influenza surveillance since 2009 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01517191). Influenza A and B viruses are identified and characterized using real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and multiplex testing has been performed on a subset of patients to identify other respiratory virus aetiologies. Since both methods can identify influenza A and B, a direct comparison was performed.Methods. Validated real-time RT-PCRs from the World Health Organization (WHO) to identify influenza A and B viruses, characterize influenza A viruses into the H1N1 or H3N2 subtypes and describe influenza B viruses belonging to the Yamagata or Victoria lineages. In a subset of patients, the Seeplex RV15 One-Step ACE Detection assay (RV15) kit was also used for the detection of other respiratory viruses.Results. In total, 1111 nasopharyngeal swabs were tested by RV15 and real-time RT-PCRs for influenza A and B identification and characterization. For influenza A, RV15 showed 98.0 % sensitivity, 100 % specificity and 99.7 % accuracy. The performance characteristics of RV15 were similar for influenza A subtypes H1N1 and H3N2. For influenza B, RV15 had 99.2 % sensitivity, 100 % specificity and 99.8 % accuracy, with similar assay performance being shown for both the Yamagata and Victoria lineages.Conclusions. Overall, the detection of circulating subtypes of influenza A and lineages of influenza B by RV15 was similar to detection by real-time RT-PCR. Multiplex testing with RV15 allows for a more comprehensive respiratory virus surveillance in hospitalized adults, without significantly compromising the reliability of influenza A or B virus detection.

Characteristics of human parainfluenza virus type 4 infection in hospitalized children in Korea

BACKGROUND

The characteristics of human parainfluenza virus type 4 (hPIV4) infection are not thoroughly understood. We therefore clarified the characteristics of hPIV4 in Korea.

METHOD

From January 2013 to December 2017, children admitted with respiratory tract infection at the Department of Pediatrics in Chung-Ang University Hospital were enrolled in the study. Nasopharyngeal aspirate specimens were obtained from patients and tested for hPIV types by multiplex reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. We retrospectively reviewed subject medical records, focusing on epidemiological and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 12 423 NPA specimens, 8,406 were positive by multiplex reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction for nine respiratory viruses, and 1,018 were positive for one of the four types of hPIV: 1,018 specimens led to the detection of 1,029 hPIVs; 3ss (31.3%) were positive for hPIV1, 120 (11.7%) were positive for hPIV2, 356 (34.6%) were positive for hPIV3, and 231 (22.4%) were positive for hPIV4. Of the hPIV-positive patients, the mean age was 2.3 years (range, 0.1-12.7 years), 225 (97.4%) had no underlying disease, and 178 (77.1%) had a fever with a duration of 4.1 ± 2.3 days and a peak temperature of 39.0 ± 0.7 ℃. The most common diagnosis in hPIV4 infection was pneumonia (44.2%), followed by bronchiolitis (26.0%) and upper respiratory tract infection (24.3%). Only 2.2% of patients were diagnosed with croup. Although the most prevalent overall type of hPIV was hPIV3, hPIV4 generally caused acute respiratory tract infection in summer and early fall in an irregular annual pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

Human parainfluenza virus type 4 is an important common pathogen of respiratory tract infections in pediatric patients in Korea.

Comparison of the Panther Fusion and Allplex assays for the detection of respiratory viruses in clinical samples

Respiratory viral infections are the most frequent clinical syndrome affecting both children and adults, and early detection is fundamental to avoid infection-related risks and reduce the healthcare costs incurred by unnecessary antibiotic treatments. In this study, performance characteristics of two commercial methods, the Panther Fusion® assay (Hologic Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) were compared to Allplex™ respiratory panels (Seegene, Seoul, South Korea) for the detection of influenza A (Flu A), influenza B (Flu B), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenza virus (PIV), human metapneumovirus (hMPV), rhinovirus (RV) and adenovirus (AdV) targets. A total of 865 specimens collected prospectively and retrospectively were included, and discordant results were further examined using another commercial product, R-GENE™ respiratory kits (bioMérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France). There was high agreement between both methods, with 98.6% concordance and a kappa (k) value of 0.9 (95% CI: 0.89-0.92). A specific analysis of both methods for each viral agent demonstrated comparable sensitivity and specificity, both ranging from 0.83 to 1 with good predictive values for the prospective part of the study. Good agreement between both methods was also found for the κ values obtained (ranging from 97.55% to 98.9%), with the lowest for hMPV (k = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.75-0.91) and RV (k = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.65-0.81). Amplification efficiency, measured according to the value of the cycle threshold (Ct) obtained in each of the amplifications in both tests, was significantly better with Panther Fusion for Flu A, Flu B, hMPV and RV. Regarding discordant results, R-GENE showed higher agreement with Panther Fusion-positive specimens (negative for Allplex; n = 28/71, 34.9%) than with Allplex-positive samples (negative for Panther Fusion; n = 7/49, 14.3%). In summary, Panther Fusion proved to be a more efficient fully-automated methodology, requiring shorter hands-on and turnaround times than Allplex.

Impact of Rapid Molecular Detection of Respiratory Viruses on Clinical Outcomes and Patient Management

To determine if rapid molecular testing for respiratory viruses in patients with respiratory illnesses can provide advantages to patients and hospitals, rigorous investigations on the impacts of using these assays are required. Well-conducted studies are needed to inform decisions about implementation of new rapid assays to replace standard molecular testing or to initiate testing in laboratories that are currently not doing molecular tests for respiratory viruses due to the complex nature of standard panels. In this issue of the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, N. Wabe et al. (J Clin Microbiol 57:e01727-18, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01727-18) report the results of their evaluation of the impact of using a rapid molecular test for influenza A/influenza B and RSV on outcomes for adults hospitalized with respiratory illness. The median time from admission to test result of the rapid test was 7.5 h compared to 40.3 h for the standard PCR assay. Compared to the use of the standard molecular assay, use of a rapid test significantly shortened time in the hospital and reduced the number of other microbiology tests performed. The authors concluded that rapid PCR testing of adults hospitalized with respiratory illnesses could provide benefits to both the patients and the hospital. Patients were able to leave the hospital earlier and a greater proportion of them had received their test results before discharge, which would allow appropriate treatment to be provided more quickly.

Clinical Performance of the AllplexTM Respiratory Panel 1 Test Compared to SimplexaTM Flu A/B and RSV for Detection of Influenza Virus and Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection Including Their Subtyping

OBJECTIVE

TheAllplexTM Respiratory Panel 1 (ARP) is a new assay based on a real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the detection of influenza A (Flu A), influenza B virus (Flu B), and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), including subtyping by multiple detection temperature (MuDT) technology. We evaluated the performance of the Allplex Respiratory Panel compared to the SimplexaTM Flu A/B &amp; RSV assay (SP) and other diagnostic tools.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 372 samples were collected from patients at the Korea University Guro Hospital in Seoul, Korea. All samples were tested for influenza virus and RSV by ARP, SP, and an in-house RT-PCR.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of ARP was 95.56, 100, and 95.24% for Flu A, Flu B, and RSV, respectively. The specificity of ARP was 100, 100, and 100% for Flu A, Flu B, and RSV, respectively. SP had sensitivities and specificities of 98.89 and 100% for Flu A, 100 and 100% for Flu B, and 100 and 100% for RSV.

CONCLUSION

The Allplex panelshowed high sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values for the detection of Flu A, Flu B, and RSV. This assay is fast and easy to perform because it takes only about 150 min and there is no need for post-PCR electrophoresis. The ARP can be used as a reliable and convenient assay in clinical laboratories.