Performance of a novel microarray multiplex PCR for the detection of 23 respiratory pathogens (SYMP-ARI study)

被引:0
作者
S. Bierbaum
N. Königsfeld
N. Besazza
K. Blessing
G. Rücker
U. Kontny
R. Berner
M. Schumacher
J. Forster
V. Falcone
C. van de Sand
A. Essig
D. Huzly
G. Rohde
D. Neumann-Haefelin
M. Panning
机构
[1] University Medical Center Freiburg,Department of Virology, Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene
[2] QIAGEN Hamburg GmbH,Center for Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine
[3] University Medical Center Freiburg,Institute of Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics
[4] University Medical Center Freiburg,Department of Paediatrics
[5] St. Josefs Hospital,Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene
[6] University of Ulm,Department of Respiratory Medicine
[7] Maastricht University Medical Center,Department of Paediatric Oncology, Haematology, and Immunology
[8] University of Heidelberg,undefined
来源
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases | 2012年 / 31卷
关键词
Influenza Virus; Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction; Acute Respiratory Tract Infection; Mycoplasma Pneumoniae; Bordetella Pertussis;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Symptoms of acute febrile respiratory tract infection are often unspecific, but the rapid identification of pathogens allows optimised patient management. The objective of this study was to evaluate a novel multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) suspension microarray which detects 19 viral and four atypical bacterial targets. A comprehensive set of sensitive monoplex real-time PCR assays was used for each pathogen as the gold standard. A panel of archived as well as 300 prospectively collected clinical samples was analysed by both methods. At least one target was detected in 165/300 (55 %) samples by monoplex PCR and in 140/300 (46 %) samples by multiplex PCR, respectively. The positivity rate was significantly higher in paediatric patients compared to adults [126/154 (82 %) vs. 39/146 (27 %) by monoplex and 114/154 (74 %) vs. 26/146 (18 %) by multiplex PCR, respectively]. Among all samples, 17/300 (5.6 %) were positive for atypical bacteria by monoplex and 8/300 (2.6 %) by multiplex PCR, respectively. Multiple detections were recorded in 35/300 (11.6 %) samples by monoplex and 26/300 (8.7 %) by multiplex PCR. For the most common pathogens, the sensitivity ranged from 57 to 93 % and the specificity ranged from 95 to 100 %. The overall concordance between both methods was 77 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 72–81 %]. False-negative results by multiplex PCR were mainly due to the low target concentration. Compared to monoplex PCR, the novel microarray assay proved its principle but displayed overall lower sensitivities, potentially restricting its use to paediatric patients. For some targets, only small numbers of positive samples were available, requiring larger studies to firmly assess the sensitivity and specificity.
引用
收藏
页码:2851 / 2861
页数:10
相关论文
共 199 条
  • [1] Balada-Llasat JM(2011)Evaluation of commercial ResPlex II v2.0, MultiCode-PLx, and xTAG respiratory viral panels for the diagnosis of respiratory viral infections in adults J Clin Virol 50 42-45
  • [2] LaRue H(2008)Development and evaluation of a novel multiplex PCR technology for molecular differential detection of bacterial respiratory disease pathogens J Clin Microbiol 46 2074-2077
  • [3] Kelly C(2011)Viral and atypical bacterial detection in acute respiratory infection in children under five years PLoS One 6 e18928-102
  • [4] Rigali L(2008)Evidence from multiplex molecular assays for complex multipathogen interactions in acute respiratory infections J Clin Microbiol 46 97-552
  • [5] Pancholi P(2007)Diagnosis of human metapneumovirus infection in immunosuppressed lung transplant recipients and children evaluated for pertussis J Clin Microbiol 45 548-1328
  • [6] Benson R(2007)Human coronavirus infections in rural Thailand: a comprehensive study using real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction assays J Infect Dis 196 1321-4557
  • [7] Tondella ML(2005)Use of bacteriophage MS2 as an internal control in viral reverse transcription-PCR assays J Clin Microbiol 43 4551-2730
  • [8] Bhatnagar J(2007)Sensitive detection of J Clin Microbiol 45 2726-298
  • [9] Carvalho Mda G(2011) in human respiratory tract samples by optimized real-time PCR approach Emerg Infect Dis 17 296-327
  • [10] Sampson JS(1969)Usefulness of published PCR primers in detecting human rhinovirus infection Psychol Bull 72 323-245