Comparison of FTD® respiratory pathogens 33 and a singleplex CDC assay for the detection of respiratory viruses: A study from Cameroon

Kenmoe, Sébastien; Tcharnenwa, Clarisse; Monamele, Gwladys Chavely; Kengne, Cyprien Nde; Ripa, Mohamadou Njankouo; Whitaker, Brett; Alroy, Karen A.; Balajee, S. Arunmozhi; Njouom, Richard

doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2019.01.007

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For a few patients, pleural effusion and endotracheal aspirate samples were collected. A total of 200 µl samples were used for nucleic acid extraction as previously reported by using easyMAG (bioMerieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France) [ 9 , 12 , 13 ]. Thirty-three respiratory pathogens were detected by using the multiplex real-time PCR method (Fast Track Diagnostic, Junglinster, Luxembourg), including IFVs (A, B and C) and the 2009 subtype of IFVA/H1N1, HPIV 1–4, HCoVs (NL63, 229E, OC43 and HKU1), HMPV A and B, EVs (including HRVs), RSV A and B, Adv, human parechovirus (HPeV), human bocavirus (HBoV), Pneumocystis jirovecii ( P. jirovecii ), M. pneumoniae , Chlamydophila pneumoniae ( C. pneumoniae ), S. pneumoniae , H. influenzae , H. influenzae type b (Hib), Staphylococcus aureus ( S. aureus ), Moraxella catarrhalis ( M. catarrhalis ), Bordetella spp.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of priority pathogens for aetiological diagnosis in adults with community-acquired pneumonia in China: a multicentre prospective study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a major public health challenge worldwide. However, the aetiological and disease severity-related pathogens associated with CAP in adults in China are not well established based on the detection of both viral and bacterial agents. Methods A multicentre, prospective study was conducted involving 10 hospitals located in nine geographical regions in China from 2014 to 2019. Sputum or bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) samples were collected from each recruited CAP patient. Multiplex real-time PCR and bacteria culture methods were used to detect respiratory pathogens. The association between detected pathogens and CAP severity was evaluated. Results Among the 3,403 recruited eligible patients, 462 (13.58%) had severe CAP, and the in-hospital mortality rate was 1.94% (66/3,403). At least one pathogen was detected in 2,054 (60.36%) patients, with two or more pathogens were co-detected in 725 patients. The ten major pathogens detected were Mycoplasma pneumoniae (11.05%), Haemophilus influenzae (10.67%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (10.43%), influenza A virus (9.49%), human rhinovirus (9.02%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (7.43%), Staphylococcus aureus (4.50%), adenovirus (2.94%), respiratory syncytial viruses (2.35%), and Legionella pneumophila (1.03%), which accounted for 76.06–92.52% of all positive detection results across sampling sites. Klebsiella pneumoniae (p < 0.001) and influenza viruses (p = 0.005) were more frequently detected in older patients, whereas Mycoplasma pneumoniae was more frequently detected in younger patients (p < 0.001). Infections with Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, influenza viruses and respiratory syncytial viruses were risk factors for severe CAP. Conclusions The major respiratory pathogens causing CAP in adults in China were different from those in USA and European countries, which were consistent across different geographical regions over study years. Given the detection rate of pathogens and their association with severe CAP, we propose to include the ten major pathogens as priorities for clinical pathogen screening in China.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of priority pathogens for aetiological diagnosis in adults with community-acquired pneumonia in China: a multicentre prospective study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such panels would also permit data to be generated on potential non-TB causes of disease. Several multi-pathogen diagnostic panels like FilmArray Respiratory Panel (Biofire Diagnostics), the Respiratory Multi Well System MWS r-gene Range (BioMerieux), FTD 21, and FTD 33 respiratory panels (FTD), Respiratory Pathogen ID/AMR Panel (Illumina) are potential candidate technologies; however, further development and research is warranted to simplify these tests and make them more useful for the types of populations in which investigations for TB are frequent [ 109 ].…”

Section: Confirmatory Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosing Tuberculosis: What Do New Technologies Allow Us to (Not) Do?

Abdulgader¹,

Ojo-Okunola²,

Ndlangalavu³

et al. 2022

Respiration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New tuberculosis (TB) diagnostics are at a crossroads: their development, evaluation, and implementation is severely damaged by resource diversion due to COVID-19. Yet several technologies, especially those with potential for non-invasive non-sputum-based testing, hold promise for efficiently triaging and rapidly confirming TB near point-of-care. Such tests are, however, progressing through the pipeline slowly and will take years to reach patients and health workers. Compellingly, such tests will create new opportunities for difficult-to-diagnose populations, including primary care attendees (all-comers in high burden settings irrespective of reason for presentation) and community members (with early stage disease or risk factors like HIV), many of whom cannot easily produce sputum. Critically, all upcoming technologies have limitations that implementers and health workers need to be cognizant of to ensure optimal deployment without undermining confidence in a technology that still offers improvements over the status quo. In this state-of-the-art review, we critically appraise such technologies for active pulmonary TB diagnosis. We highlight strengths, limitations, outstanding research questions, and how current and future tests could be used in the presence of these limitations and uncertainties. Among triage tests, CRP (for which commercial near point-of-care devices exist) and computer-aided detection software with digital chest X-ray hold promise, together with late-stage blood-based assays that detect host and/or microbial biomarkers; however, aside from a handful of prototypes, the latter category has a shortage of promising late-stage alternatives. Furthermore, positive results from new triage tests may have utility in people without TB; however, their utility for informing diagnostic pathways for other diseases is under-researched (most sick people tested for TB do not have TB). For confirmatory tests, few true point-of-care options will be available soon; however, combining novel approaches like tongue swabs with established tests like Ultra have short-term promise but first require optimizations to specimen collection and processing procedures. Concerningly, no technologies yet have compelling evidence of meeting the World Health Organization optimal target product profile performance criteria, especially for important operational criteria crucial for field deployment. This is alarming as the target product profile criteria are themselves almost a decade old and require urgent revision, especially to cater for technologies made prominent by the COVID-19 diagnostic response (e.g., at-home testing and connectivity solutions). Throughout the review, we underscore the importance of how target populations and settings affect test performance and how the criteria by which these tests should be judged vary by use case, including in active case finding. Lastly, we advocate for health workers and researchers to themselves be vocal proponents of the uptake of both new tests and those – already available tests that remain suboptimally utilized.

show abstract

“…Other studies have reported on sensitivity and specificity or concordance of the FTD-33 assay compared with either other multipathogen platforms or in-house singleplex tests. [8][9][10][11][12][13] Most of these studies reported comparable results for the influenza A, influenza B, and H1N1 assays; however, two reported significant discrepancies with the influenza B assay. 8,10 Most specimens with discordant results had higher ct values, closer to the limit of detection; thus, discordant results were not unexpected given the lower concentrations of virus in the specimens.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Comparison of performance between Fast Track Diagnostics Respiratory Kit and the CDC global reference laboratory for influenza rRT‐PCR panel for detection of influenza A and influenza B

Cissé

Milucky

Ilboudo

et al. 2021

Influenza Resp Viruses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison of FTD® respiratory pathogens 33 and a singleplex CDC assay for the detection of respiratory viruses: A study from Cameroon

Cited by 8 publications

References 21 publications

Identification of priority pathogens for aetiological diagnosis in adults with community-acquired pneumonia in China: a multicentre prospective study

Identification of priority pathogens for aetiological diagnosis in adults with community-acquired pneumonia in China: a multicentre prospective study

Diagnosing Tuberculosis: What Do New Technologies Allow Us to (Not) Do?

Comparison of performance between Fast Track Diagnostics Respiratory Kit and the CDC global reference laboratory for influenza rRT‐PCR panel for detection of influenza A and influenza B

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About