tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
J Clin Microbiol. 2012 Apr 18. [Epub ahead of print]
Comparison of the Luminex xTAG RVP FAST and the Idaho Technology FilmArray RP Assays for the Detection of Respiratory viruses in Pediatric Patients at a Cancer Hospital.
Babady NE, Mead P, Stiles J, Brennan C, Li H, Shuptar S, Stratton CW, Tang YW, Kamboj M.
Source
Clinical Microbiology Service, Department of Laboratory Medicine.
Abstract
Background: Respiratory viruses have become increasingly recognized as serious causes of morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. Rapid and sensitive detection of respiratory viruses is essential for early diagnosis and administration of appropriate antiviral therapy as well as for effective implementation of infection control measures.Methods: We compared the performance of two commercial assays, the xTAG RVP FAST (Luminex Diagnostics, Toronto, Canada) and the FilmArray RVP (FA RVP, Idaho Technology, Salt Lake City, Utah) in pediatric patients at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. These assays detect the following viruses: respiratory syncytial virus, influenza A and B, parainfluenza 1, 2, 3, 4, human metapneumovirus, adenovirus, enterovirus-rhinovirus, coronaviruses NL63, HKU1, 229E and OC43 and bocavirus. We tested a total of 358 respiratory specimens from 173 pediatric patients previously tested by direct fluorescence assay (DFA) and viral culture.Results: The overall detection rate (positive specimen/total specimen) for viruses tested by all methods was 24% for DFA/culture, 45% for xTAG RVP FAST and 51% for FA RVP. The agreement between the two multiplex assays was 84.5%, and the difference in detection rate was statistically significant (p<0.0001).Conclusion: Overall, the FA RVP was more sensitive than the xTAG RVP FAST and had a turn-around time of approximately 1 hour. The sensitivity, simplicity, and the random access platform make the FA RVP an excellent choice for the laboratory on-demand service with low to medium volume.
PMID:
22518855
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22518855
Comparison of the Luminex xTAG RVP FAST and the Idaho Technology FilmArray RP Assays for the Detection of Respiratory viruses in Pediatric Patients at a Cancer Hospital.
Babady NE, Mead P, Stiles J, Brennan C, Li H, Shuptar S, Stratton CW, Tang YW, Kamboj M.
Source
Clinical Microbiology Service, Department of Laboratory Medicine.
Abstract
Background: Respiratory viruses have become increasingly recognized as serious causes of morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. Rapid and sensitive detection of respiratory viruses is essential for early diagnosis and administration of appropriate antiviral therapy as well as for effective implementation of infection control measures.Methods: We compared the performance of two commercial assays, the xTAG RVP FAST (Luminex Diagnostics, Toronto, Canada) and the FilmArray RVP (FA RVP, Idaho Technology, Salt Lake City, Utah) in pediatric patients at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. These assays detect the following viruses: respiratory syncytial virus, influenza A and B, parainfluenza 1, 2, 3, 4, human metapneumovirus, adenovirus, enterovirus-rhinovirus, coronaviruses NL63, HKU1, 229E and OC43 and bocavirus. We tested a total of 358 respiratory specimens from 173 pediatric patients previously tested by direct fluorescence assay (DFA) and viral culture.Results: The overall detection rate (positive specimen/total specimen) for viruses tested by all methods was 24% for DFA/culture, 45% for xTAG RVP FAST and 51% for FA RVP. The agreement between the two multiplex assays was 84.5%, and the difference in detection rate was statistically significant (p<0.0001).Conclusion: Overall, the FA RVP was more sensitive than the xTAG RVP FAST and had a turn-around time of approximately 1 hour. The sensitivity, simplicity, and the random access platform make the FA RVP an excellent choice for the laboratory on-demand service with low to medium volume.
PMID:
22518855
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22518855