Various diagnostic tests utilizing different principles are currently under development for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, these tests can occasionally produce discrepant results, causing confusion in their interpretation. Here, we evaluated the performance and features of three diagnostic assays: quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), FilmArray Respiratory Panel (RP) v2.1, and the LUMIPULSE antigen test. Twenty-seven serial nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from a prolonged viral shedding patient who had been hospitalized for 51 days. We examined the SARS-CoV-2 detection rates of the three tests. The overall agreement rate was 81% between RT-qPCR and FilmArray RP v2.1, 63% between the antigen test and FilmArray RP v2.1, and 59% between the antigen test and RT-qPCR. We obtained concordant results in samples with high viral loads (low threshold cycle values) by all three tests. RT-qPCR and FilmArray RP v2.1 accurately detected SARS-CoV-2 at the early to intermediate phases of infection, but the results varied at the late phase. The antigen test also produced a positive result at the early phase but varied at the intermediate phase and consistently produced negative results at late phase of infection. These results demonstrated FilmArray RP v2.1 could detect SARS-CoV-2 with accuracy comparable to RT-qPCR. Further, there were discrepant results using different types of diagnostic tests during the clinical course of prolonged viral shedding patient. We provided insights into how to utilize different types of kits to assess and manage SARS-CoV-2 infections.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7598429 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2020.10.026 | DOI Listing |
Trop Med Infect Dis
October 2022
Unidad de Investigación para la Generación y Síntesis de Evidencias en Salud, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Lima 15024, Peru.
The COVID-19 pandemic circumstances have varied the pathogens related to acute respiratory infections (ARI), and most specialists have ignored them due to SARS-CoV-2's similar symptomatology. We identify respiratory pathogens with multiplex PCR in samples with presumptive SARS-CoV-2 but negative RT-qPCR results. We performed a retrospective transversal study employing clinical data and nasopharyngeal swab samples from patients with suspected clinical SARS-CoV-2 infection and a negative PCR result in a private laboratory in Lima, Peru.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBMC Infect Dis
March 2022
Department of Gastroenterology, Yamanashi Central Hospital, 1-1-1 Fujimi, Kofu, Yamanashi, Japan.
Background: The nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) and antigen test are approved diagnostic tests for COVID-19. In this study, we aimed to investigate the assay performance of two NAATs (Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and FilmArray Respiratory Panel) and a quantitative antigen test (Lumipulse).
Methods: One hundred and sixty-five nasopharyngeal swabs were subjected to Xpert, FilmArray, Lumipulse, and RT-qPCR assays.
J Infect Chemother
February 2021
Department of Gastroenterology, Yamanashi Central Hospital, 1-1-1 Fujimi, Kofu, Yamanashi, Japan; The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Various diagnostic tests utilizing different principles are currently under development for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, these tests can occasionally produce discrepant results, causing confusion in their interpretation. Here, we evaluated the performance and features of three diagnostic assays: quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), FilmArray Respiratory Panel (RP) v2.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnviron Sci Pollut Res Int
September 2018
Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR), Kenepuru Science Centre, PO Box 50348, Porirua, 5240, New Zealand.
The BioFire FilmArray Gastrointestinal Panel was evaluated for the rapid detection of adenovirus, astrovirus, norovirus, rotavirus and sapovirus from influent and effluent wastewater and shellfish. The multiplex BioFire FilmArray Gastrointestinal Panel compared well to singleplex qPCR/RT-qPCR methods for the detection of adenovirus, astrovirus, rotavirus and sapovirus from influent and effluent wastewater samples. However, the BioFire FilmArray Gastrointestinal Panel showed poor performance for the detection of norovirus, significantly underestimating its presence in wastewater and shellfish samples when compared with the singleplex norovirus GI and GII RT-qPCR assays.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!