Comparative Performance Evaluation of FilmArray BioFire RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Detection

被引:8
|
作者
Tazi, Sophia [1 ,2 ]
Kabbaj, Hakima [1 ,2 ]
Zirar, Jalila [1 ,2 ]
Zouaki, Amal [1 ,2 ]
El Amin, Ghizlane [1 ,2 ]
El Himeur, Othman [1 ,3 ]
Seffar, Myriam [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Mohamed V Univ, Fac Med & Pharm, Rabat, Morocco
[2] Ibn Sina Univ Hosp Ctr, Cent Lab Virol, Rabat, Morocco
[3] Ibn Sina Univ Hosp Ctr, Cent Lab Bacteriol, Rabat, Morocco
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
DIAGNOSIS; COVID-19; SYSTEMS; PATIENT;
D O I
10.1155/2022/4510900
中图分类号
Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 100705 ;
摘要
Background. RT-PCR is the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis, but the lack of standardization of assays, whose diagnostic performance may widely vary, complicates the interpretation of the discrepancies that may be encountered. Study design. We conducted a retrospective study over a ten-month period at the Central Laboratory of Virology of Ibn Sina University Hospital of Rabat. We included nasopharyngeal swabs, positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2 on FilmArray BioFire (R) Respiratory Panel 2.1 Plus, which were subjected to our laboratory's reference test, MAScIR SARS-CoV-2 M kit 2.0, initially or after a freeze-thaw cycle. The results were compared, and each discrepant sample with sufficient volume underwent the third test, using ARGENE (R) SARS-CoV-2 R-GENE kit. Results. Of 80 SARS-CoV-2 negative samples on FilmArray, there were no discordant results, whereas of 80 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples on FilmArray, 21 had discordant results on MAScIR, and only 11 could be tested on ARGENE, revealing positive results in 6 cases. 12.7% and 76.5% correspond to the discordance rates for MAScIR (with one or both targets detected on FilmArray), while 14.3% and 100% correspond to those of ARGENE. As the estimated sensitivity and specificity of FilmArray, compared with MAScIR, were 100% and 79.2%, respectively, its lower limit of detection, and ARGENE assay results, made it difficult to distinguish between false positives on FilmArray and false negatives on MAScIR without further investigations. Conclusion. The implementation of a new assay in our laboratory revealed discrepancies suggesting a lack of sensitivity of our laboratory's reference test, leading us consequently to retain the SARS-CoV-2 positive result of these discordant samples on FilmArray, regardless of the detection of one or both targets. Our study, which is, to our knowledge, the first comparing FilmArray RP2.1 and MAScIR 2.0 assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection, highlights the urgent need to standardize RT-PCR assays for COVID-19 diagnosis.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] BioFire FilmArray respiratory panel RP2.1 for SARS-CoV-2 detection: The pitfalls
    Chang, Yu-Chang
    Hsiao, Chiung-Tzu
    Chen, Wan-Li
    Su, Yang-Di
    Hsueh, Po-Ren
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INFECTION, 2022, 85 (05) : E149 - E151
  • [2] Evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 and the BioFire FilmArray RP2.1 for the Rapid Detection of Respiratory Pathogens Including SARS-CoV-2
    Cassidy, Hayley
    van Genne, Mart
    Lizarazo-Forero, Erley
    Niesters, Hubert G. M.
    Gard, Lilli
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY, 2022, 13
  • [3] Multicenter Evaluation of the BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1 (RP2.1) for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Nasopharyngeal Swab Samples
    Berry, Gregory J.
    Zhen, Wei
    Smith, Elizabeth
    Manji, Ryhana
    Silbert, Suzane
    Lima, Amorce
    Harington, Amanda
    McKinley, Kathleen
    Kensinger, Bart
    Neff, Crissy
    Lu, Daisy
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2022, 60 (05)
  • [4] Evaluation of the MAScIR SARS-CoV-2 M Kit 2.0 on the SARS-CoV-2 Infection
    Zouaki, Amal
    Kabbaj, Hakima
    El Amin, Ghizlane
    Ouadghiri, Mouna
    Belefquih, Bouchra
    Ibrahimi, Azeddine
    Seffar, Myriam
    [J]. ADVANCES IN VIROLOGY, 2023, 2023
  • [5] Clinical evaluation of the BioFire® Respiratory Panel 2.1 and detection of SARS-CoV-2
    Creager, Hannah M.
    Cabrera, Barbara
    Schnaubelt, Andy
    Cox, Jesse L.
    Cushman-Vokoun, Allison M.
    Shakir, Salika M.
    Tardif, Keith D.
    Huang, Meei-Li
    Jerome, Keith R.
    Greninger, Alexander L.
    Drobysheva, Daria
    Spaulding, Usha
    Rogatcheva, Margarita
    Bourzac, Kevin M.
    Hinrichs, S. H.
    Broadhurst, M. J.
    Fey, P. D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY, 2020, 129
  • [6] Clinical Evaluation of BioFire COVID-19 Test, BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1, and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Assays for Sample-to-Answer Detection of SARS-CoV-2
    Park, Joonhong
    Kim, So Yeon
    Lee, Jaehyeon
    Hong, Ki Ho
    [J]. GENES, 2023, 14 (01)
  • [7] The BioFire® RP2.1 Panel Did Not Identify Concurrent Respiratory Virus Infection in Adults with Variable SARS-CoV-2 Disease Severity and Infection Duration
    Quicke, Kendra M.
    Baxter, Bridget A.
    Stromberg, Sophia
    Gallichotte, Emily N.
    Fitzmeyer, Emily
    Young, Michael C.
    Pabilonia, Kristy L.
    Ehrhart, Nicole
    Dunn, Julie
    Ebel, Gregory D.
    Ryan, Elizabeth P.
    [J]. ADVANCES IN VIROLOGY, 2022, 2022
  • [8] Performance evaluation of Biofire Film Array Respiratory Panel 2.1 for SARS-CoV-2 detection in a pediatric hospital setting
    Mesquita Ramirez, Mirta
    Noemi Zarate, Miria
    Adelaida Rodriguez, Leonidas
    Hugo Aquino, Victor
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2023, 18 (10):
  • [9] Comparative evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays in India
    Chaudhuri, Susmita
    Thiruvengadam, Ramachandran
    Chattopadhyay, Souvick
    Mehdi, Farha
    Kshetrapal, Pallavi
    Shrivastava, Tripti
    Desiraju, Bapu Koundinya
    Batra, Gaurav
    Kang, Gagandeep
    Bhatnagar, Shinjini
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY, 2020, 131
  • [10] A four specimen-pooling scheme reliably detects SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses using the BioFire FilmArray Respiratory Panel 2.1
    Charlene Ranadheera
    Greg J. German
    Laura Steven
    Dale Eung
    Dmytro Lyubashenko
    Jessica C. Pepin
    Marko Zivcec
    Kym Antonation
    Cindi R. Corbett
    [J]. Scientific Reports, 12