Performance Evaluation of Allplex Respiratory Panels 1, 2, and 3 for Detection of Respiratory Viruses and Influenza A Virus Subtypes

Huh, Hee Jae; Kim, Ji-Youn; Kwon, Hyeon Jeong; Yun, Sang Soon; Lee, Myoung-Keun; Lee, Nam Yong; Kim, Jong-Won; Ki, Chang‐Seok

doi:10.1128/jcm.02045-16

Cited by 21 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Any16 detected more positive results for HEV than that by All16. The analytical sensitivity of All16 is reported as 50 copies/µL, except for when PIV1 is analyzed, yielding a sensitivity of 10 copies/reaction, and when PIV4 and MPV are analyzed, with a sensitivity of 10 3 copies/reaction [ 7 ]. In contrast, the sensitivity of Any16 under the same conditions is approximately 6 copies/µL [ 8 ].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Allplex Respiratory Panel 1/2/3 Multiplex Real-Time PCR Assays for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses with Influenza A Virus subtyping

Lee

Cho

et al. 2018

Ann Lab Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Allplex Respiratory Panel 1/2/3 (All16) is a multiplex PCR assay for detecting 16 respiratory viruses with influenza A virus (FluA) subtyping, and the first clinical assay based on multiple detection temperatures. We compared the results between All16 and Anyplex II RV16 (Any16) in 426 clinical samples. Samples showing discrepancies between the two tests were further tested using monoplex PCR. FluA subtyping based on the hemagglutinin type results of All16, which yielded H1, H3, and non-H1/H3, was compared with the results of the BioFire FilmArray respiratory panel. The positive and negative percent agreements and kappa value for each virus between All16 and Any16 ranged from 54.5-100.0%, 84.7-100.0%, and 0.57-1.00, respectively. FluA subtype results from All16 for 26 samples were consistent with those from FilmArray. Good agreement was observed between the two methods, except when analyzing human enterovirus (kappa value 0.70), and the All16 showed reliable FluA subtyping results. For parainfluenza virus 3, the All16 was more sensitive than Any16. When testing 28 samples simultaneously, the mean test time and hands-on time were 4.3 and 0.5 hours, respectively in All16. In conclusion, All16 showed reliable performance, but further studies are needed regarding human enterovirus analysis.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Allplex Respiratory Panel 1/2/3 Multiplex Real-Time PCR Assays for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses with Influenza A Virus subtyping

Lee

Cho

et al. 2018

Ann Lab Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several multiplexed respiratory assays with CE-IVD approval are currently available on the market. Among them, Allplex respiratory assays have shown good performance and reliable results [15][16][17]. The recently-developed Panther Fusion System is a fully automated randomaccess testing system that has shown comparable results with those obtained with the eSensor RVP (eSensor; Genmark Dx, Carlsbad, CA) and Lyra (Quidel, San Diego, CA) respiratory assays [13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The purpose of this study was to compare these two commercial products (Panther Fusion assay and Allplex respiratory panels) for the detection of influenza A (Flu A), influenza B (Flu B), RSV, parainfluenza virus (PIV), human metapneumovirus (hMPV), rhinovirus (RV) and adenovirus (AdV), using a single patient sample. Both assays consist of three multiplex realtime PCR (rRT-PCR) panels, and have recently shown good performance in the detection of a battery of respiratory viruses [13][14][15][16][17], but to date they have not been compared to each other.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Panther Fusion and Allplex assays for the detection of respiratory viruses in clinical samples

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Respiratory viral infections are the most frequent clinical syndrome affecting both children and adults, and early detection is fundamental to avoid infection-related risks and reduce the healthcare costs incurred by unnecessary antibiotic treatments. In this study, performance characteristics of two commercial methods, the Panther Fusion® assay (Hologic Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) were compared to Allplex™ respiratory panels (Seegene, Seoul, South Korea) for the detection of influenza A (Flu A), influenza B (Flu B), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenza virus (PIV), human metapneumovirus (hMPV), rhinovirus (RV) and adenovirus (AdV) targets. A total of 865 specimens collected prospectively and retrospectively were included, and discordant results were further examined using another commercial product, R-GENE™ respiratory kits (bioMérieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France). There was high agreement between both methods, with 98.6% concordance and a kappa (k) value of 0.9 (95% CI: 0.89–0.92). A specific analysis of both methods for each viral agent demonstrated comparable sensitivity and specificity, both ranging from 0.83 to 1 with good predictive values for the prospective part of the study. Good agreement between both methods was also found for the κ values obtained (ranging from 97.55% to 98.9%), with the lowest for hMPV (k = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.75–0.91) and RV (k = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.65–0.81). Amplification efficiency, measured according to the value of the cycle threshold (Ct) obtained in each of the amplifications in both tests, was significantly better with Panther Fusion for Flu A, Flu B, hMPV and RV. Regarding discordant results, R-GENE showed higher agreement with Panther Fusion-positive specimens (negative for Allplex; n = 28/71, 34.9%) than with Allplex-positive samples (negative for Panther Fusion; n = 7/49, 14.3%). In summary, Panther Fusion proved to be a more efficient fully-automated methodology, requiring shorter hands-on and turnaround times than Allplex.

show abstract

“…Several multiplex PCR-based assays have been approved for in vitro diagnostics of respiratory viruses: BioFire FilmArray Respiratory Panel (bioMerieux Italia, Bagno a Ripoli, Florence, Italy), the GenMark eSensor Respiratory Viral Panel (Carlsbad, CA, USA), xTAG Respiratory Viral panel (Austin, Texas, USA), Allplex™ Respiratory Panel 1-3 (Seegene, Seoul, South Korea), etc. [2,[5][6][7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Viruses of Respiratory Tract: an Observational Retrospective Study on Hospitalized Patients in Rome, Italy

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Respiratory tract infections account for high morbidity and mortality around the world. Fragile patients are at high risk of developing complications such as pneumonia and may die from it. Limited information is available on the extent of the circulation of respiratory viruses in the hospital setting. Most knowledge relates to influenza viruses (FLU) but several other viruses produce flu-like illness. The study was conducted at the University Hospital Policlinico Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy. Clinical and laboratory data from hospitalized patients with respiratory tract infections during the period October 2016-March 2019 were analysed. The retrospective analysis included 17 viral agents detected by FilmArray test and clinical data from medical records and hospital discharge sheets. Models were adjusted for relevant confounders such as clinical severity and risk of death, socio-demographic characteristics and surgical procedures. From a total of 539 specimens analysed, 180 (33.39%) were positive for one or more respiratory viruses. Among them, 83 (46.1 %) were positive for influenza viruses (FLU), 36 (20%) rhino/enteroviruses (RHV/EV), 17 (9.44%) human coronaviruses (HCOV-229E, -HKU1, -NL63, and -OC43), 17 (9.44%) respiratory syncytial virus, 15 (8.33%) human metapneumovirus (HMPV), 8 (4.44%) parainfluenza viruses (PIV) and 4 (2.22%) adenoviruses (ADV). The distribution of viral agents varied across age groups and month of detection. The positive specimens were from 168 patients [102 M, 66 F; median age (range): 64 years (19−93)]. Overall, 40% of them had a high-grade clinical severity and a 27% risk of death; 27 patients died and 22 of them (81.5%) had received a clinical diagnosis of pneumonia. Respiratory viral infections may have a severe course and a poor prognosis in hospitalized patients, due to underlying comorbidities. Monitoring the circulation of respiratory viruses in hospital settings is important to improve diagnosis, prevention and treatment.

show abstract

Performance Evaluation of Allplex Respiratory Panels 1, 2, and 3 for Detection of Respiratory Viruses and Influenza A Virus Subtypes

Cited by 21 publications

References 20 publications

Evaluation of Allplex Respiratory Panel 1/2/3 Multiplex Real-Time PCR Assays for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses with Influenza A Virus subtyping

Evaluation of Allplex Respiratory Panel 1/2/3 Multiplex Real-Time PCR Assays for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses with Influenza A Virus subtyping

Comparison of the Panther Fusion and Allplex assays for the detection of respiratory viruses in clinical samples

Viruses of Respiratory Tract: an Observational Retrospective Study on Hospitalized Patients in Rome, Italy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About