• 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.

Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis . Evaluation of the BioFire? COVID-19 test and Respiratory Panel 2.1 for rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2 in nasophary

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis


. 2020 Nov 10;99(3):115260.
doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2020.115260. Online ahead of print.
Evaluation of the BioFire? COVID-19 test and Respiratory Panel 2.1 for rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab samples


Eric J Eckbo[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Kerstin Locher[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Melissa Caza[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Lisa Li[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Valery Lavergne[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Marthe Charles[SUP] 3 [/SUP]



Affiliations
Free PMC article

Abstract

The BioFire? COVID-19 Test and Respiratory Panel 2.1 (RP2.1) are rapid, fully automated assays for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in nasopharyngeal swabs. In the case of the RP2.1, an additional 21 viral and bacterial pathogens can be detected. Both tests have received emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration and Interim Order authorization from Health Canada for use in clinical laboratories. We evaluated the performance characteristics of these tests in comparison to a laboratory-developed real-time PCR assay targeting the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and E genes. A total of 78 tests were performed using the BioFire COVID-19 Test, including 30 clinical specimens and 48 tests in a limit of detection study; 57 tests were performed using the RP2.1 for evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 detection, including 30 clinical specimens and 27 tests for limit of detection. Results showed 100% concordance between the BioFire assays and the laboratory-developed test for all clinical samples tested, and acceptable performance of both BioFire assays at their stated limits of detection. Conclusively, the BioFire COVID-19 Test and RP2.1 are highly sensitive assays that can be effectively used in the clinical laboratory for rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Keywords: BioFire; COVID-19; FilmArray; Laboratory Developed Test; RP2.1; SARS-CoV-2.
 
Back
Top Bottom