Comparison of the Xpert Flu/RSV XC and Xpress Flu/RSV assays

Molecular diagnostics for influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) have become commonplace, and various tests and systems have been cleared by the FDA for use in the United States. We performed a retrospective study to compare the Cepheid Xpress Flu/RSV assay with the Xpert Flu/RSV XC assay, using laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) as the reference method. The Xpress assay was 100% accurate compared to LDTs, whereas the Xpert Flu/RSV XC assay was 96.0% accurate. The Xpress test was determined to be faster and more sensitive than the XC assay

Evaluation of a novel multiplex PCR panel compared to quantitative bacterial culture for diagnosis of lower respiratory tract infections

Quantitative bacterial culture of bronchoalveolar lavage fluids (BALF) is labor-intensive, and the delay involved in performing culture, definitive identification, and susceptibility testing often results in prolonged use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. The Unyvero lower respiratory tract (LRT) panel (Curetis, Holzgerlingen, Germany) allows the multiplexed rapid detection and identification of 20 potential etiologic agents of pneumonia within 5 h of collection. In addition, the assay includes detection of gene sequences that confer antimicrobial resistance. We retrospectively compared the performance of the molecular panel to routine quantitative bacterial culture methods on remnant BALF. Upon testing 175 BALF, we were able to analyze positive agreement of 181 targets from 129 samples, and 46 samples were negative. The positive percent agreement (PPA) among the microbial targets was 96.5%, and the negative percent agreement (NPA) was 99.6%. The targets with a PPA of <100% were Staphylococcus aureus (34/37 [91.9%]), Streptococcus pneumoniae (10/11 [90.9%]), and Enterobacter cloacae complex (2/4 [50%]). For the analyzable resistance targets, concordance with phenotypic susceptibility testing was 79% (14/18). This study found the Unyvero LRT panel largely concordant with culture results; however, no outcome or clinical impact studies were performed

Performance Characteristics of Xpert Flu/RSV XC Assay

The Xpert Flu/RSV XC assay was compared to laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) ( n = 207) and the Xpert Flu assay ( n = 147) using archived nasopharyngeal swabs. The percentages of positive agreements with LDTs were 97.8% for influenza A, 97.2% for influenza B, and 89.3% for RSV. The sensitivity of influenza detection was improved with the Xpert Flu/RSV XC assay compared to the Xpert Flu assay

Comparison of the Biofire FilmArray RP, Genmark eSensor RVP, Luminex xTAG RVPv1, and Luminex xTAG RVP Fast Multiplex Assays for Detection of Respiratory Viruses

There are several U.S. FDA-cleared molecular respiratory virus panels available today, each with advantages and disadvantages. This study compares four multiplex panels, the BioFire Diagnostics FilmArray RP (respiratory panel), the GenMark Dx eSensor RVP (respiratory viral panel), the Luminex xTAG RVPv1, and the Luminex xTAG RVP fast. Three hundred specimens (200 retrospective and 100 consecutive) were tested using all four platforms to determine performance characteristics. The overall sensitivity and specificity, respectively, and 95% confidence interval (CI; in parentheses) for each panel were as follows: FilmArray RP, 84.5% (79.2, 88.6) and 100% (96.2, 100); eSensor RVP, 98.3% (95.5, 99.5) and 99.2% (95.4, 100); xTAG RVPv1, 92.7% (88.5, 95.4) and 99.8% (96.0, 100); and xTAG RVP fast, 84.4% (78.5, 88.9) and 99.9% (96.1, 100). The sensitivity of each assay fluctuated by viral target, with the greatest discrepancies noted for adenovirus and influenza virus B detection. Hands-on time and time to result were recorded and ease of use was assessed to generate a complete profile of each assay

Comparative Evaluation of the Nanosphere Verigene RV+ Assay and the Simplexa Flu A/B & RSV Kit for Detection of Influenza and Respiratory Syncytial Viruses

Using retrospective (n = 200) and prospective (n = 150) nasopharyngeal specimens, we evaluated the Nanosphere Verigene RV+ and the Focus Diagnostics Simplexa Flu A/B & RSV tests. Overall, RV+ demonstrated sensitivities and specificities of 96.6% and 100% for influenza A virus, 100% and 99.7% for influenza B virus, and 100% and 100% for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), while the Simplexa test sensitivities and specificities were 82.8 and 99.7%, 76.2 and 100%, and 94.6 and 100%, respectively

Diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert ® MTB/RIF cycle threshold level to predict smear positivity: a meta-analysis

SETTING: Xpert® MTB/RIF is the most widely used molecular assay for rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB). The number of polymerase chain reaction cycles after which detectable product is generated (cycle threshold value, CT) correlates with the bacillary burden.OBJECTIVE To investigate the association between Xpert CT values and smear status through a systematic review and individual-level data meta-analysis. DESIGN: Studies on the association between CT values and smear status were included in a descriptive systematic review. Authors of studies including smear, culture and Xpert results were asked for individual-level data, and receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated. RESULTS: Of 918 citations, 10 were included in the descriptive systematic review. Fifteen data sets from studies potentially relevant for individual-level data meta-analysis provided individual-level data (7511 samples from 4447 patients); 1212 patients had positive Xpert results for at least one respiratory sample (1859 samples overall). ROC analysis revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85 (95%CI 0.82-0.87). Cut-off CT values of 27.7 and 31.8 yielded sensitivities of 85% (95%CI 83-87) and 95% (95%CI 94-96) and specificities of 67% (95%CI 66-77) and 35% (95%CI 30-41) for smear-positive samples. CONCLUSION: Xpert CT values and smear status were strongly associated. However, diagnostic accuracy at set cut-off CT values of 27.7 or 31.8 would not replace smear microscopy. How CT values compare with smear microscopy in predicting infectiousness remains to be seen

Quantitative thresholds enable accurate identification of clostridium difficile infection by the luminex xTAG gastrointestinal pathogen panel

Clostridium difficile colonizes the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, resulting in either asymptomatic carriage or a spectrum of diarrheal illness. If clinical suspicion for C. difficile is low, stool samples are often submitted for analysis by multiplex molecular assays capable of detecting multiple GI pathogens, and some institutions do not report this organism due to concerns for high false-positive rates. Since clinical disease correlates with organism burden and molecular assays yield quantitative data, we hypothesized that numerical cutoffs could be utilized to improve the specificity of the Luminex xTAG GI pathogen panel (GPP) for C. difficile infection. Analysis of cotested liquid stool samples (n 1,105) identified a GPP median fluorescence intensity (MFI) value cutoff of 1,200 to be predictive of two-step algorithm (2-SA; 96.4% concordance) and toxin enzyme immunoassay (EIA) positivity. Application of this cutoff to a second cotested data set (n 1,428) yielded 96.5% concordance. To determine test performance characteristics, concordant results were deemed positive or negative, and discordant results were adjudicated via chart review. Test performance characteristics for the MFI cutoff of 150 (standard), MFI cutoff of 1,200, and 2-SA were as follows (respectively): concordance, 95, 96, and 97%; sensitivity, 93, 78, and 90%; specificity, 95, 98, and 98%; positive predictive value, 67, 82, and 81%;, and negative predictive value, 99, 98, and 99%. To capture the high sensitivity for organism detection (MFI of 150) and high specificity for active infection (MFI of 1,200), we developed and applied a reporting algorithm to interpret GPP data from patients (n 563) with clinician orders only for syndromic panel testing, thus enabling accurate reporting of C. difficile for 95% of samples (514 negative and 5 true positives) irrespective of initial clinical suspicion and without the need for additional testing

Burden of respiratory viral infection in persons with human immunodeficiency virus

This study was conducted to determine the prevalence of respiratory viral infections (RVI) in persons living with HIV (PLH) admitted with a respiratory complaint using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and primer-independent next-generation sequencing (NGS). Of 82 subjects, respiratory viruses were the most common pathogen identified in 27 (33%), followed by fungus and bacteria in 8 (10%) and 4 (5%) subjects, respectively. Among subjects with RVI, 11 (41%) required ICU admission and 16 (59%) required mechanical ventilation. The proportion of respiratory viruses identified, and the associated complicated hospital course highlights the significant role that RVIs play in the lung health of PLH

Xpert MTB/RIF Assay Shortens Airborne Isolation for Hospitalized Patients With Presumptive Tuberculosis in the United States

Background. In the United States, individuals with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis are placed in airborne infection isolation (AII) and assessed by smear microscopy on 3 respiratory specimens collected 8–24 hours apart. Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert) on 1, 2, or 3 specimens may be more efficient for determining AII discontinuation

Microbiological efficacy of early MRSA treatment in cystic fibrosis in a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate microbiological effectiveness, that is, culture negativity of a non-blinded eradication protocol (Rx) compared with observation (Obs) in clinically stable cystic fibrosis participants with newly positive methicillin resistant Staphylococcusaureus (MRSA) cultures. DESIGN: This non-blinded trial randomised participants ages 4-45 years with first or early (≤2 positive cultures within 3 years) MRSA-positive culture without MRSA-active antibiotics within 4 weeks 1:1 to Rx or Obs. The Rx protocol was: oral trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or if sulfa-allergic, minocycline plus oral rifampin; chlorhexidine mouthwash for 2 weeks; nasal mupirocin and chlorhexidine body wipes for 5 days and environmental decontamination for 21 days. The primary end point was MRSA culture status at day 28. RESULTS: Between 1 April 2011 to September 2014, 45 participants (44% female, mean age 11.5 years) were randomised (24 Rx, 21 Obs). At day 28, 82% (n=18/22) of participants in the Rx arm compared with 26% (n=5/19) in the Obs arm were MRSA-negative. Adjusted for interim monitoring, this difference was 52% (95% CI 23% to 80%, p<0.001). Limiting analyses to participants who were MRSA-positive at the screening visit, 67% (8/12) in the Rx arm and 13% (2/15) in the Obs arm were MRSA-negative at day 28, adjusted difference: 49% (95% CI 22% to 71%, p<0.001). Fifty-four per cent in the Rx arm compared with 10% participants in the Obs arm remained MRSA-negative through day 84. Mild gastrointestinal side effects were higher in the Rx arm. CONCLUSIONS: This MRSA eradication protocol for newly acquired MRSA demonstrated microbiological efficacy with a large treatment effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01349192