Suppr超能文献

QIAstat-Dx和BioFire多重检测板检测呼吸道病原体的多中心评估

Multicenter Evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx and the BioFire Multiplex Panel Tests for the Detection of Respiratory Pathogens.

作者信息

Gosert Rainer, Koller Roger, Meyer Jakob, Dräger Sarah, Ramette Alban, Bingisser Roland, Nickel Christian H, Bassetti Stefano, Sutter Sarah Tschudin, Keller Peter M, Bittel Pascal, Leuzinger Karoline

机构信息

Clinical Virology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Institute for Infectious Diseases, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

出版信息

J Med Virol. 2024 Dec;96(12):e70129. doi: 10.1002/jmv.70129.

Abstract

Syndromic multiplex panel testing enables simultaneous detection of multiple respiratory pathogens, but limited data is available on the comparative diagnostic performance of different testing systems. In this multicenter prospective study, we aimed to compare the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel 2.0 (QIAstat-Dx-RP2.0) with the widely used BioFire-RP2.1, using 269 respiratory clinical specimens. Concordant test results were obtained in 232 (86.3%) cases. Discordant test results included 33 BioFire-RP2.1(+)/QIAstat-Dx-RP2.0(-) and 4 BioFire-RP2.1(-)/QIAstat-Dx-RP2.0(+) results. Discordant samples showed significantly lower pathogen loads than concordant ones (p < 0.01). Overall, the QIAstat-Dx-RP2.0 showed an analytical sensitivity of 50%-100% depending on the respiratory target, with an analytical specificity ≥ 99.0%. Most significant differences were found for the detection of adenovirus, human coronaviruses, respiratory syncytial virus, human rhinovirus/enterovirus and SARS-CoV-2 (kappa-score: 0.67-0.91). Co-detections of respiratory pathogens were identified in 47 cases by BioFire-RP2.1 and 29 by QIAstat-Dx-RP2.0. Agreement rates between the two multiplex panel tests decreased from 91.8% for single pathogen detections to 65.0% and 42.9% for co-detecting two and three pathogens, respectively. Pathogen loads were significantly lower in co-detections compared to single pathogen detections (p < 0.01), potentially explaining the lower detection rates with the QIAstat-Dx-RP2.0 in cases of multiple pathogens. In conclusion, our prospective multicenter evaluation showed good diagnostic performance of the QIAstat-Dx-RP2.0 assay, but lower detection rates for some respiratory targets compared to BioFire-RP2.1. As QIAstat-Dx-RP2.0 offers advantages in handling, noise emission, cost effectiveness, and provides semi-quantitative results compared to BioFire-RP2.1 an updated version with enhanced analytical sensitivity would be a viable alternative syndromic testing system for detecting respiratory pathogens.

摘要

综合征多重检测板检测能够同时检测多种呼吸道病原体,但关于不同检测系统的比较诊断性能的可用数据有限。在这项多中心前瞻性研究中,我们旨在使用269份呼吸道临床标本,将QIAstat-Dx呼吸道检测板2.0(QIAstat-Dx-RP2.0)与广泛使用的BioFire-RP2.1进行比较。232例(86.3%)获得了一致的检测结果。不一致的检测结果包括33例BioFire-RP2.1(阳性)/QIAstat-Dx-RP2.0(阴性)和4例BioFire-RP2.1(阴性)/QIAstat-Dx-RP2.0(阳性)结果。不一致的样本显示病原体载量明显低于一致的样本(p < 0.01)。总体而言,QIAstat-Dx-RP2.0根据呼吸道目标显示出50%-100%的分析灵敏度,分析特异性≥ 99.0%。在检测腺病毒、人冠状病毒、呼吸道合胞病毒、人鼻病毒/肠道病毒和SARS-CoV-2方面发现了最显著的差异(kappa评分:0.67-0.91)。BioFire-RP2.1在47例中检测到呼吸道病原体共感染,QIAstat-Dx-RP2.0在29例中检测到。两种多重检测板检测之间的一致率从单病原体检测的91.8%分别降至两种和三种病原体共检测的65.0%和42.9%。与单病原体检测相比,共检测中的病原体载量明显更低(p < 0.01),这可能解释了在多种病原体情况下QIAstat-Dx-RP2.0的检测率较低的原因。总之,我们的前瞻性多中心评估显示QIAstat-Dx-RP2.0检测具有良好的诊断性能,但与BioFire-RP2.1相比,某些呼吸道目标的检测率较低。由于QIAstat-Dx-RP2.0在处理、噪声排放、成本效益方面具有优势,并且与BioFire-RP2.1相比提供半定量结果,因此具有更高分析灵敏度的更新版本将是一种可行的替代综合征检测系统,用于检测呼吸道病原体。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c1a3/11664495/88e22e29a2e5/JMV-96-e70129-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验