Porcine respirovirus 1, also referred to as porcine parainfluenza virus 1 (PPIV-1), was first detected in deceased pigs from Hong Kong in 2013. It has since then been found in the USA, Chile and most recently in Hungary. Information on the pathogenicity and global spread is sparse. However, it has been speculated to play a role in the porcine respiratory disease complex. To investigate the porcine virome, we screened 53 pig samples from 26 farms within the Dutch-German border region using shotgun metagenomics sequencing (SMg). After detecting PPIV-1 in five farms through SMg, a real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-qPCR) assay was designed, which not only confirmed the presence of the virus in 1 of the 5 farms but found an additional 6 positive farms. Phylogenetic analysis found the closest match to be the first detected PPIV-1 strain in Hong Kong. The Dutch-German region represents a significant area of pig farming within Europe and could provide important information on the characterization and circulation of porcine viruses, such as PPIV-1. With its recent detection in Hungary, these findings suggest widespread circulation of PPIV-1 in Central Europe, highlighting the need for further research on persistence, pathogenicity and transmission in Europe.

Current molecular detection methods for single or multiplex pathogens by real-time PCR generally offer great sensitivity and specificity. However, many infectious pathogens often result in very similar clinical presentations, complicating the test-order for physicians who have to narrow down the causative agent prior to in-house PCR testing. As a consequence, the intuitive response is to start empirical therapy to treat a broad spectrum of possible pathogens. Syndromic molecular testing has been increasingly integrated into routine clinical care, either to provide diagnostic, epidemiological or patient management information. These multiplex panels can be used to screen for predefined infectious disease pathogens simultaneously within a 1 h timeframe, creating opportunities for rapid diagnostics. Conversely, syndromic panels have their own challenges and must be adaptable to the evolving demands of the clinical setting. Firstly, questions have been raised regarding the clinical relevance of some of the targets included in the panels and secondly, there is the added expense of integration into the clinical laboratory. Here, we aim to discuss some of the factors that should be considered before performing syndromic testing rather than traditional low-plex in-house PCR.

Point-of-care syndromic panels allow for simultaneous and rapid detection of respiratory pathogens from nasopharyngeal swabs. The clinical performance of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 panel RP2.0 (QIAstat-Dx RP2.0) and the BioFire FilmArray Respiratory panel RP2.1 (BioFire RP2.1) was evaluated for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other common respiratory pathogens. A total of 137 patient samples were retrospectively selected based on emergency department admission, along with 33 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples tested using a WHO laboratory developed test. The limit of detection for SARS-CoV-2 was initially evaluated for both platforms. The QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 detected SARS-CoV-2 at 500 copies/mL and had a positive percent agreement (PPA) of 85%. The BioFire RP2.1 detected SARS-CoV-2 at 50 copies/mL and had a PPA of 97%. Both platforms showed a negative percent agreement of 100% for SARS-CoV-2. Evaluation of analytical specificity from a range of common respiratory targets showed a similar performance between each platform. The QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 had an overall PPA of 82% (67–100%) in clinical samples, with differences in sensitivity depending on the respiratory target. Both platforms can be used to detect acute cases of SARS-CoV-2. While the QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 is suitable for detecting respiratory viruses within a clinical range, it has less analytical and clinical sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 compared to the BioFire RP2.1.