• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Comparison of the Biofire FilmArray Respiratory Panel, Seegene AnyplexII RV16, and Argene for the detection of respiratory viruses

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
J Clin Virol. 2018 Jul 6;106:13-17. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2018.07.002. [Epub ahead of print]
[h=1]Comparison of the Biofire FilmArray Respiratory Panel, Seegene AnyplexII RV16, and Argene for the detection of respiratory viruses.[/h] Chan M[SUP]1[/SUP], Koo SH[SUP]2[/SUP], Jiang B[SUP]1[/SUP], Lim PQ[SUP]2[/SUP], Tan TY[SUP]3[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]

[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] Respiratory infections are common reasons for hospital admission, and are associated with enormous economic burden due to significant morbidity and mortality. The wide spectrum of microbial agents underlying the pathology renders the diagnosis of respiratory infections challenging. Molecular diagnostics offer an advantage to the current serological and culture-based methods in terms of sensitivity, coverage, hands-on time, and time to results.
[h=4]OBJECTIVES:[/h] This study aimed to compare the clinical performance of three commercial kits for respiratory viral detection.
[h=4]STUDY DESIGN:[/h] The performance of FilmArray Respiratory Panel, AnyplexII RV16, and Argene was compared using clinical respiratory samples (n = 224, comprising 189 nasopharyngeal swabs in Universal Transport Medium (UTM) and 35 endotracheal aspirates), based on common overlapping targets across the platforms. Influenza A "equivocal" and "no-subtype" samples by FilmArray were further compared to a laboratory-developed Influenza A/B test.
[h=4]RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS:[/h] The overall performance of all three platforms appeared to be comparable with regards to sensitivities (95.8-97.9%) and specificities (96.1-98.0%), detection of coinfections, and distinguishment of influenza from non-influenza cases. "Equivocal" and "no-subtype" samples by FilmArray mostly represented weak Influenza A by laboratory-developed test. Lower respiratory tract samples had comparable final-run success-rates and discordant-rates as compared to UTM. Coronavirus HKU1, which was not targeted by AnyplexII RV16, were detected as OC43. The expected test volume would be the main determinant for the selection of platform. Among the platforms, the FilmArray is the most automated but is of the lowest-throughput and has the highest reagent cost.
Copyright ? 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.


[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Molecular diagnostics; Respiratory infections; Viruses

PMID: 30007137 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2018.07.002
 
Back
Top Bottom