Multicenter Evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel for the Detection of Viruses and Bacteria in Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens

The QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel (QIAstat-Dx RP) is a multiplex in vitro diagnostic test for the qualitative detection of 20 pathogens directly from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens. The assay is performed using a simple sample-to-answer platform with results available in approximately 69 min. The pathogens identified are adenovirus, coronavirus 229E, coronavirus HKU1, coronavirus NL63, coronavirus OC43, human metapneumovirus A and B, influenza A, influenza A H1, influenza A H3, influenza A H1N1/2009, influenza B, parainfluenza virus 1, parainfluenza virus 2, parainfluenza virus 3, parainfluenza virus 4, rhinovirus/enterovirus, respiratory syncytial virus A and B, Bordetella pertussis, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae. This multicenter evaluation provides data obtained from 1,994 prospectively collected and 310 retrospectively collected (archived) NPS specimens with performance compared to that of the BioFire FilmArray Respiratory Panel, version 1.7. The overall percent agreement between QIAstat-Dx RP and the comparator testing was 99.5%. In the prospective cohort, the QIAstat-Dx RP demonstrated a positive percent agreement of 94.0% or greater for the detection of all but four analytes: coronaviruses 229E, NL63, and OC43 and rhinovirus/enterovirus. The test also demonstrated a negative percent agreement of ≥97.9% for all analytes. The QIAstat-Dx RP is a robust and accurate assay for rapid, comprehensive testing for respiratory pathogens

Improved Efficiency and Robustness in qPCR and Multiplex End-Point PCR by Twisted Intercalating Nucleic Acid Modified Primers

We introduce quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) primers and multiplex end-point PCR primers modified by the addition of a single ortho-Twisted Intercalating Nucleic Acid (o-TINA) molecule at the 5′-end. In qPCR, the 5′-o-TINA modified primers allow for a qPCR efficiency of 100% at significantly stressed reaction conditions, increasing the robustness of qPCR assays compared to unmodified primers. In samples spiked with genomic DNA, 5′-o-TINA modified primers improve the robustness by increased sensitivity and specificity compared to unmodified DNA primers. In unspiked samples, replacement of unmodified DNA primers with 5′-o-TINA modified primers permits an increased qPCR stringency. Compared to unmodified DNA primers, this allows for a qPCR efficiency of 100% at lowered primer concentrations and at increased annealing temperatures with unaltered cross-reactivity for primers with single nucleobase mismatches. In a previously published octaplex end-point PCR targeting diarrheagenic Escherichia coli, application of 5′-o-TINA modified primers allows for a further reduction (>45% or approximately one hour) in overall PCR program length, while sustaining the amplification and analytical sensitivity for all targets in crude bacterial lysates. For all crude bacterial lysates, 5′-o-TINA modified primers permit a substantial increase in PCR stringency in terms of lower primer concentrations and higher annealing temperatures for all eight targets. Additionally, crude bacterial lysates spiked with human genomic DNA show lesser formation of non-target amplicons implying increased robustness. Thus, 5′-o-TINA modified primers are advantageous in PCR assays, where one or more primer pairs are required to perform at stressed reaction conditions

Multicenter evaluation of the QIAstat Respiratory Panel—A new rapid highly multiplexed PCR based assay for diagnosis of acute respiratory tract infections

International audienceAcute respiratory tract infections (ARTI), including the common cold, pharyngitis, sinusitis, otitis media, bronchiolitis and pneumonia are the most common diagnoses among patients seeking medical care in western countries, and account for most antibiotic prescriptions. While a confirmed and fast ARTI diagnosis is key for antibiotic prescribing, empiric antimicrobial treatment remains common, because viral symptoms are often clinically similar and difficult to distinguish from those caused by bacteria. As a result, inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions are high and in certain settings likely higher than the commonly estimated 30%. The QIAstat Respiratory Panel® assay (QIAstat RP) is a multiplexed in vitro diagnostics test for the rapid simultaneous detection of 21 pathogens directly from respiratory samples, including human mastadenovirus A-G, primate bocaparvovirus 1+2, human coronavirus (HKU1, NL63, OC43, 229E), human metapneumovirus A/B, rhinovirus/enterovirus, influenza A virus (no subtype, subtype H1, H1N1/2009, H3), influenza B virus, human respirovirus 1+3, human orthorubulavirus 2+4, human orthopneumovirus, Bordetella pertussis, Chlamydia pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Legionella pneumophila. We describe the first multicenter study of 445 respiratory samples, collected through the 2016-2017 and 2018 respiratory seasons, with performance compared against BioFire FilmArray RP v1.7 and discrepancy testing by Seegene Allplex RP. The QIAstat RP demonstrated a positive percentage of agreement of 98.0% (95% CI: 96.0-99.1%) and a negative percentage agreement of 99.8% (95% CI: 99.6-99.9%). With use of this comprehensive and rapid test, improved patient outcomes and antimicrobial stewardship may potentially be achieved

An Agreement of Antigen Tests on Oral Pharyngeal Swabs or Less Invasive Testing With Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 in Adults: Protocol for a Prospective Nationwide Observational Study

BackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented level of worldwide testing for epidemiologic and diagnostic purposes, and due to the extreme need for tests, the gold-standard Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) testing capacity has been unable to meet the overall worldwide testing demand. Consequently, although the current literature has shown the sensitivity of rapid antigen tests (RATs) to be inferior to RT-PCR, RATs have been implemented on a large scale without solid data on performance. ObjectiveThis study will compare analytical and clinical sensitivities and specificities of 50 lateral flow– or laboratory-based RATs and 3 strand invasion–based amplification (SIBA)-RT-PCR tests from 30 manufacturers to RT-PCR testing of samples obtained from the deep oropharynx. In addition, the study will compare sensitivities and specificities of the included RATs as well as RT-PCR on clinical samples obtained from the deep oropharynx, the anterior nasal cavity, saliva, the deep nasopharynx, and expired air to RT-PCR on deep oropharyngeal samples. MethodsIn the prospective part of the study, 200 individuals found SARS-CoV-2 positive and 200 individuals found SARS-CoV-2 negative by routine RT-PCR testing will be retested with each RAT, applying RT-PCR as the reference method. In the retrospective part of the study, 304 deep oropharyngeal cavity swabs divided into 4 groups based on RT-PCR quantification cycle (Cq) levels will be tested with each RAT. ResultsThe results will be reported in several papers with different aims. The first paper will report retrospective (analytical sensitivity, overall and stratified into different Cq range groups) and prospective (clinical sensitivity) data for RATs, with RT-PCR as the reference method. The second paper will report results for RAT based on anatomical sampling location. The third paper will compare different anatomical sampling locations by RT-PCR testing. The fourth paper will focus on RATs that rely on central laboratory testing. Tests from 4 different manufacturers will be compared for analytical performance data on retrospective deep oropharyngeal swab samples. The fifth paper will report the results of 4 RATs applied both as professional use and as self-tests. The last paper will report the results from 2 breath tests in the study. A comparison of sensitivity and specificity between RATs will be conducted using the McNemar test for paired samples and the chi-squared test for unpaired samples. Comparison of the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) between RATs will be performed by the bootstrap test, and 95% CIs for sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV will be calculated as bootstrap CIs. ConclusionsThe study will compare the sensitivities of a large number of RATs for SARS-CoV-2 to with those of RT-PCR and will address whether lateral flow–based RATs differ significantly from laboratory-based RATs. The anatomical test locations for both RATs and RT-PCR will also be compared. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04913116; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04913116 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/3570

Nonaplex PCR using Cliffhanger primers to identify diarrhoeagenic <i>Escherichia coli</i> from crude lysates of human faecal samples

<div><p>Sensitive, probe-based detection of multiple DNA targets is limited by the competitive reannealing of the antiparallel duplex DNA helix with the complementary DNA strand. To address this, we developed Cliffhanger primers, which create single-stranded DNA overhangs on PCR amplicons while simultaneously increasing the multiplex PCR efficacy and allowing PCR amplification using crude lysates of human faecal samples. A multiplex PCR that targeted eight genes from diarrhoeagenic <i>Escherichia coli</i> plus an internal control was performed and compared to a routine method that consisted of culture followed by multiplex PCR with fragment length separation. A total of 2515 clinical faecal samples from patients with diarrhoea were tested using both methods, and there was a significant increase in clinical sensitivity and negative predictive value with the Cliffhanger method for seven out of eight genes. All Cliffhanger-only positive samples were confirmed by Sanger sequencing of the PCR amplicon. Notably, the Cliffhanger method reduced the total sample turn-around time in the laboratory from 20 hours to 6 hours. Hence, use of Cliffhanger primers increased assay robustness, decreased turn-around time and increased PCR efficacy. This increased the overall clinical sensitivity without the loss of specificity for a heavily multiplexed PCR assay.</p></div

Testing of 105 DEC strains from a reference collection by the routine method and by the Cliffhanger method.

<p>Testing of 105 DEC strains from a reference collection by the routine method and by the Cliffhanger method.</p

Workflows of the routine analysis method versus the Cliffhanger method.

<p>Workflows of the routine analysis method versus the Cliffhanger method.</p