Evaluation of the Seegene Allplex™ Respiratory Panel for diagnosis of acute respiratory tract infections. Issue 6 (2nd November 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Vandendriessche, Stien; Padalko, Elizaveta; Wollants, Elke; Verfaillie, Charlotte; Verhasselt, Bruno; Coorevits, Liselotte
• Is Part Of: Acta clinica belgica. Volume 74:Issue 6(2019)
• Page Start: 379
• Page End: 385
• Publication Date: 2019-11-02
• Subjects: Respiratory pathogens -- molecular detection -- multiplex PCR -- real-time PCR; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Diagnosis, Laboratory -- Periodicals; 616.005
• DOI: 10.1080/17843286.2018.1531605
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1784-3286

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Objectives: The Seegene Allplex TM Respiratory panel was retrospectively challenged using a collection of quality control samples (QCMD) and clinical samples previously analysed with validated routine methods. Methods: A collection of 111 samples [43 QCMD samples, 13 bronchoalveolar lavage fluids and 55 nasopharyngeal aspirates/swabs] was tested with Seegene Allplex TM . The clinical samples were tested previously using either FTD® Respiratory Pathogens 21 qPCR assay (Fast Track Diagnostics), an in-house multiplex PCR for Bordetella, or BioGX Sample-Ready TM Atypical pneumo panel (Becton Dickinson). Samples were stored at −80°C prior to analysis with Seegene Allplex™, nucleic acids were automatically extracted with NucliSENS Easymag (bioMérieux). Samples returning discordant results were subjected to repeat testing and/or additional testing by reference laboratories. Results: Seegene correctly identified 41/43 QCMD samples (95.4%); two samples positive for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and human metapneumovirus, respectively, were only correctly identified following repeat testing. In the 56 clinical samples, overall, 97 pathogens were identified: 65 pathogens (67.0%) were detected both by routine methods and Seegene, 24 pathogens (24.7%) only by routine methods, and 8 pathogens (8.2%) only by Seegene. The majority of discordant results was detected in samples with low pathogen load (22/32, 68.8%) and in samples containing multiple pathogens (25/32, 78.1%). Full agreement between methods was observed for influenza, RSV, adenovirus, Bordetella (para)pertussis and Chlamydia pneumoniae . Discordance was observed for human metapneumovirus, coronavirus OC43, bocavirus and parainfluenza virus, mainly type 4. Conclusion: Overall, the Seegene Allplex TM assay performed well for routine detection of important respiratory targets. Acceptable agreement was observed between Seegene and other routine assays.