Evaluation of the analytical and clinical performance of two RT-PCR based point-of-care tests; Cepheid Xpert® Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus and SD BioSensor STANDARD™ M10 Flu/RSV/SARS-CoV-2

•The analytical and clinical sensitivity of the Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test is superior compared to the STANDARD M10 Flu/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 test at low viral load.•The estimated clinical sensitivity, based on a real-life distribution of Ct-values, is superior for the Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of clinical virology 2024-06, Vol.172, p.105674, Article 105674
Hauptverfasser: Jensen, Christel Barker, Schneider, Uffe Vest, Madsen, Tina Vasehus, Nielsen, Xiaohui Chen, Ma, Chih Man German, Severinsen, Jette Krogh, Hoegh, Anne Mette, Botnen, Amanda Bolt, Trebbien, Ramona, Lisby, Jan Gorm
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•The analytical and clinical sensitivity of the Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test is superior compared to the STANDARD M10 Flu/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 test at low viral load.•The estimated clinical sensitivity, based on a real-life distribution of Ct-values, is superior for the Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test compared to the STANDARD M10 Flu/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 test.•The diagnostic safety of the xpert xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test is superior compared to the M10 Flu/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 test. Rapid and accurate detection of viral respiratory infections is important for infection control measures. This study compares the analytical and clinical performance of the Xpert® Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test (“Xpert”, Cepheid) and the STANDARD™ M10 Flu/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 test (“M10”, SD Biosensor). Both tests are quadruplex RT-PCR assays for rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B and RSV. Analytical sensitivities were determined by limit of detection for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B and RSV, respectively. Additionally, the clinical performance of the Xpert and the M10 tests was evaluated against standard-of-care RT-PCR by testing of 492 clinical specimens. The analytical sensitivities for Xpert versus M10 test was 10, 50, 50 and 300 versus 300, 200, 800 and 1500 copies/mL for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B and RSV, respectively. Clinical sensitivity for the Xpert test was superior across all four pathogens compared to the M10 test. Xpert showed clinical sensitivity of 100 % in all Ct-ranges for all four pathogens whereas M10 showed clinical sensitivity of 100 % in the 25–30 Ct-range, 84–100 % in the 30–35 Ct-range and 47–67 % in the >35 Ct-range across the four pathogens. Translating into real-life clinical sensitivity, the Xpert would detect 100 % of all four pathogens, whereas M10 would detect 92.1, 92.4, 84.8 and 94.7 % for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B and RSV. This study demonstrates improved analytical and clinical performance of Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus compared to STANDARD M10 Flu/RSV/SARS-CoV-2, which is important for ensuring accuracy of diagnosis at all stages of a respiratory infection.
ISSN:1386-6532
1873-5967
1873-5967
DOI:10.1016/j.jcv.2024.105674