Department of Laboratory Medicine, the Eighth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, China.
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
J Clin Microbiol. 2018 Feb 22;56(3). doi: 10.1128/JCM.01691-17. Print 2018 Mar.
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 (TCID), 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.
快速鉴定呼吸道病原体,如甲型流感病毒(FluA)、乙型流感病毒(FluB)和呼吸道合胞病毒(RSV),可减少不必要的抗菌药物使用,并增强感染控制实践。我们对三种分子方法进行了比较评估:(i)Aries Flu A/B & RSV,(ii)Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV,和(iii)Cobas Flu A/B & RSV 测定法。使用 200 份残留鼻咽拭子(NPS)标本对三种方法的临床性能进行了评估,以联合参考标准为对照。使用具有已知滴度的 FluA、FluB 和 RSV 对照株确定检测限(LOD)。三种检测方法的 95%LOD 在 1.702 至 0.000350%组织培养感染剂量(TCID)之间,无显著差异。在重复性研究中获得了完美的定性检测一致性。Cobas 检测法在首次运行 13 个临床标本时失败,导致无效率为 6.5%。所有检测方法的灵敏度和特异性对于所有三种病毒均为 96.0%至 100.0%和 99.3%至 100%。对于按需单份标本和批处理 12 份标本的工作流程,Aries 检测法(12 个样本容量)的检测周转时间分别为 115.5 和 128.8 分钟,Xpress 检测法(16 个样本容量)分别为 34.2 和 44.2 分钟,而 Cobas 检测法(一台仪器)分别为 21.0 和 254.4 分钟。综上所述,Aries、Xpress 和 Cobas Liat 测定法在癌症患者的 NPS 标本中同时检测和鉴定 FluA、FluB 和 RSV 方面表现出优异的灵敏度和特异性。当仪器可扩展性不受限制时,Xpress 的检测周转时间明显更短。