Broad reactivity of the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Virus Panel (RVP) assay for the detection of human rhinoviruses

Chandrasekaran, Alamelu; Manji, Ryhana; Joseph, Ansamma; Zhang, Fan; Ginocchio, Christine C.

doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2011.12.006

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, because tests of clinical performance characteristics of the RVP assay found that 42 of 43 specimens testing positive for HEV/HRV were confirmed to be HRV (personal communication with the manufacturer), the specimens identified as HRV in our patients also have a high probability of being HRV. This conclusion is also consistent with 2 recent studies in which 100% of clinical specimens ( n = 164) positive for HRV/HEV by RVP were subsequently confirmed positive for HRV and negative for HEV upon further molecular testing .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Human rhinovirus infections of the lower respiratory tract in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients

Jacobs

Shore

Satlin

et al. 2013

Transplant Infectious Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Human rhinoviruses (HRVs) are a common cause of upper respiratory infection (URI) in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients; yet, their role in lower respiratory illness is not well understood. Methods We performed a retrospective chart review of HSCT recipients with HRV infection from the time molecular detection methods were implemented at our institution in 2008. Factors associated with proven or possible HRV pneumonia at the first HRV detection were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analysis. We then characterized all episodes of proven and possible HRV pneumonia from the initial HRV infection through a 1-year follow-up period. Results Between 2008 and 2011, 63 HSCT recipients had ≥ 1 documented HRV infections. At first HRV detection, 36 (57%) patients had HRV URI and 27 (43%) had proven or possible HRV pneumonia; in multivariate analysis, hypoalbuminemia (odds ratio [OR] 9.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3–71.7; P=0.03) and isolation of respiratory co-pathogen(s) (OR 24.2, 95%CI 2.0–288.4; P=0.01) were independently associated with pneumonia. During the study period, 22 patients had 25 episodes of proven HRV pneumonia. Fever (60%), cough (92%), sputum production (61%), and dyspnea (60%) were common symptoms. Fifteen (60%) episodes demonstrated bacterial (n=n=7), fungal (n=n=5), or viral (n=n=3) co-infection. Among the remaining 10 (40%) cases of HRV monoinfection, patients’ oxygen saturations ranged from 80% to 97% on ambient air, and computed tomography scans showed peribronchiolar, patchy, ground glass infiltrates. Conclusions HRV pneumonia is relatively common after HSCT and frequently accompanied by bacterial co-infection. As use of molecular assays for respiratory viral diagnosis becomes widespread, HRV will be increasingly recognized as a significant cause of pneumonia in immunocompromised hosts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Human rhinovirus infections of the lower respiratory tract in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients

Jacobs

Shore

Satlin

et al. 2013

Transplant Infectious Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, most multiplex respiratory virus assays have comparable performance, but each assay has small differences in performance among different targets depending on circulating strains. Problems that have been encountered are mainly lack of sensitivity for specific subtypes of adenovirus and inability to differentiate rhinovirus from enterovirus (Bibby et al, 2011;Chandrasekaran et al, 2012;Gharabaghi et al, 2011;Hayden et al, 2012;Mahony et al, 2007;Renaud et al, 2012). The principal differences among the multiplex respiratory virus assays concern the throughput, turnaround time, ease of use, automation, versatility, use of a closed system to reduce contamination and cost.…”

Section: Multiplex Respiratory Virus Assay Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and economical impact of multiplex respiratory virus assays

Vallières

Renaud

2013

Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the last decade, a variety of molecular assays targeting respiratory viruses have been developed and commercialized. Therefore, multiplex PCR are increasingly used in everyday clinical practice. This improves our understanding of respiratory virus epidemiology and enhances our concerns about their clinical impact in specific patient populations. However, questions remain regarding cost-effectiveness of performing these diagnostic tests in routine and their real impact on patient care. This article will review available data and highlight unresolved questions about cost-effectiveness, infection control, clinical utility and public health impact of multiplex respiratory virus assays.

show abstract

“… 1 2 3 A broad spectrum of diseases is caused by common respiratory viruses, including influenza A virus (IFVA), influenza B virus (IFVB), adenovirus (AdV), parainfluenza virus (PIV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human coronavirus (HCoV), human metapneumovirus (HMPV), human bocavirus (HBoV), and human enterovirus/human rhinovirus (HEV/HRV), etc. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 The common symptoms of respiratory viral infections include fever, cough, sore throat, etc. 12 Previous studies reported that 15%–38% of respiratory viral infections develop into acute lower respiratory infections, typically appearing with severe signs and symptoms of croup, wheezing, pneumonia, high fever, or bronchiolitis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-Analysis of the Diagnostic Efficacy of the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel FAST v2 Assay for Respiratory Viral Infections

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Acute respiratory viral infections pose significant morbidity and mortality, making it essential to diagnose respiratory viral infections rapidly. In this study, the diagnostic efficacy of the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Virus Panel (RVP) FAST v2 test was evaluated on respiratory viral infections. Materials and Methods Information was retrieved from electronic databases, including Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library, for systematic review. Studies that fulfilled predefined inclusion criteria were included. After the extraction of information, statistical software was utilized for quality evaluation, data analysis, and assessment of publication bias. Results Eighty groups in fourfold tables from nine articles were included to perform statistical analyses. Therein, the mean specificity and mean sensitivity of Luminex xTAG RVP FAST v2 test for the detection of respiratory viral infections were 0.99 (0.98–0.99) and 0.88 (0.87–0.90), respectively. Additionally, the negative and positive likelihood ratios were 0.14 (0.11–0.19) and 87.42 (61.88–123.50), respectively. Moreover, the diagnostic odds ratio and area under the curve of summary receiver operating characteristic were 714.80 and 0.9886, respectively. Conclusion The Luminex xTAG RVP FAST v2 test could be a reliable and rapid diagnostic method for multiple respiratory viral infections.

show abstract

Broad reactivity of the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Virus Panel (RVP) assay for the detection of human rhinoviruses

Cited by 7 publications

References 7 publications

Human rhinovirus infections of the lower respiratory tract in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients

Human rhinovirus infections of the lower respiratory tract in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients

Clinical and economical impact of multiplex respiratory virus assays

Meta-Analysis of the Diagnostic Efficacy of the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel FAST v2 Assay for Respiratory Viral Infections

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About