Evaluation of commercial ResPlex II v2.0, MultiCode®-PLx, and xTAG® respiratory viral panels for the diagnosis of respiratory viral infections in adults

Abstract

While the ResPlex II and MultiCode-PLx offer a broader virus detection range and greater ease of use, the xTAG PRV showed increased sensitivity to common viral targets represented in the assays, and also had the ability to differentiate human from non-human influenza A H1.

Human Metapneumovirus: Lessons Learned over the First Decade

“…Most multiplex assays for the detection of respiratory viruses also include HMPV detection reagents. The xTAG respiratory virus panel (RVP; Luminex, Toronto, Canada) was shown to have superior negative predictive values, with acceptable positive predictive values that were marginally lower than the positive predictive value of the ResPlex II test by Qiagen (Hilden, Germany) (11). The ResPlex II assay has a broader pathogen range and detects up to 19 different viruses, compared to 17 viruses detected by the xTAG RVP assay (11).…”

“…The xTAG respiratory virus panel (RVP; Luminex, Toronto, Canada) was shown to have superior negative predictive values, with acceptable positive predictive values that were marginally lower than the positive predictive value of the ResPlex II test by Qiagen (Hilden, Germany) (11). The ResPlex II assay has a broader pathogen range and detects up to 19 different viruses, compared to 17 viruses detected by the xTAG RVP assay (11). With respect to HMPV, the xTAG RVP, ResPlex II, and MultiCode-PLx assays have similar detection efficiencies (11).…”

Evaluation of the Performance of a Multiplex PCR Method for the Diagnosis of Viral Respiratory Tract Infections

“…Daha önce yapılan araştırmalarda olduğu gibi bu çalışmada da multipleks PCR yönteminin klasik yöntemlerden daha duyarlı olduğu görülmüştür (8,12,13) . Multipleks PCR'ın daha duyarlı olmasının yanı sıra hızlı ve doğru sonuç vermesi de klinik ve epidemiyolojik açıdan önem taşımaktadır.…”

Current Best Practices for Respiratory Virus Testing

“…Although the specificities of DFA and rapid cell culture are high, the sensitivities of the tests vary by virus (and sometimes by viral strain) from a low of 50% (adenovirus DFA and RSV culture) to a high of Ͼ80% (RSV DFA and influenza A virus culture) compared to NAATs (26,30,31,35,52). In addition, although the 8 viruses commonly detected are responsible for a large portion of viral respiratory tract infections, select coronaviruses (229E, OC43, NL63, and HKU-1), parainfluenza virus type 4, rhinovirus, and potentially bocavirus are also significant causes of respiratory disease and are generally only detected using NAATs (4 (8 viruses), 35% for rapid cell culture (7 viruses), and 63% for a comprehensive NAAT (15 viruses).…”

“…Studies have demonstrated that mixed viral infections are detected in 3.3 to 30.0% of samples when a wide variety of viral respiratory pathogens are included in the testing (4,16,39,41). Although the significance of mixed viral infections still needs to be clearly defined, the clinical impact in critically ill patients and patients with comorbidities or immune suppression must be considered potentially severe.…”