Chan Wai-Sing, Wong Kan-Pui, Yau Siu-Kei, Wong Ching-Yan, Chan Tsz-Ching, Hung Jeffrey, Lai Kristi Tsz-Wan, Leung Chin-Pang, Wang Candy Ling-Na, Au Chun-Hang, Wan Thomas Shek-Kong, Ma Edmond Shiu-Kwan, Tang Bone Siu-Fai
Department of Pathology, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2024 Mar 24;14(7):683. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14070683.
The performance of the Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV and Alinity m Resp-4-Plex Assays were evaluated using 167 specimens, including 158 human respiratory specimens and 9 external quality assessment program (EQAP) samples. For respiratory specimens, CoV-2/Flu/RSV exhibited perfect agreement with the standard-of-care (SOC) methods (Cohen's κ: 1, 100% agreement). The overall positive and negative percent agreement (PPA and NPA) were 100%, with 95% confidence intervals of 96.50 to 100% and 85.70 to 100%, respectively. On the other hand, Resp-4-Plex revealed an almost perfect agreement with the SOC methods (Cohen's κ: 0.92, 97.71% agreement). The overall PPA and NPA were 100% (95.76 to 100%) and 88.46% (70.20 to 96.82%), respectively. For EQAP samples, the results of CoV-2/Flu/RSV (9/9) and Resp-4-Plex (4/4) were concordant with the expected results. The experimental limit of detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was the lowest (25 copies/mL for both methods), and that of the respiratory syncytial virus was the highest (400 copies/mL for CoV-2/Flu/RSV and 100 copies/mL for Resp-4-Plex). Threshold cycle (Ct) value correlation showed a large positive linear association between CoV-2/Flu/RSV and Resp-4-Plex, with R-squared values of 0.92-0.97, and on average, the Ct values of CoV-2/Flu/RSV were higher than that of Resp-4-Plex by 1.86-2.78, except for Flu A1 target (-0.66). To conclude, the performance of both assay was comparable to the SOC methods for both upper and lower respiratory specimens. Implementation of these rapid assay may reinforce the diagnostic capacity for the post-pandemic co-circulation of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses.
使用167份样本对Xpert Xpress CoV-2/流感/呼吸道合胞病毒(RSV)检测法和Alinity m Resp-4-Plex检测法的性能进行了评估,其中包括158份人类呼吸道样本和9份外部质量评估计划(EQAP)样本。对于呼吸道样本,CoV-2/流感/RSV检测法与标准护理(SOC)方法表现出完全一致(科恩kappa系数:1,一致性为100%)。总体阳性和阴性百分比一致性(PPA和NPA)均为100%,95%置信区间分别为96.50%至100%和85.70%至100%。另一方面,Resp-4-Plex检测法与SOC方法显示出几乎完全一致(科恩kappa系数:0.92,一致性为97.71%)。总体PPA和NPA分别为100%(95.76%至100%)和88.46%(70.20%至96.82%)。对于EQAP样本,CoV-2/流感/RSV检测法(9/9)和Resp-4-Plex检测法(4/4)的结果与预期结果一致。严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)的实验检测限最低(两种方法均为25拷贝/毫升);呼吸道合胞病毒的检测限最高(CoV-2/流感/RSV检测法为400拷贝/毫升,Resp-4-Plex检测法为100拷贝/毫升)。阈值循环(Ct)值相关性显示CoV-2/流感/RSV检测法与Resp-4-Plex检测法之间存在高度正线性关联,决定系数(R平方)值为0.92 - 0.97,除甲型流感1靶点外(差值为-0.66),CoV-2/流感/RSV检测法的Ct值平均比Resp-4-Plex检测法高1.86 - 2.78。总之,两种检测法在上呼吸道和下呼吸道样本中的性能均与SOC方法相当。实施这些快速检测法可能会增强对SARS-CoV-2和其他呼吸道病毒在疫情后共同传播的诊断能力。