Journal Browser Advanced Search Help
Journal Browser Advanced search HELP
Ann Lab Med. 2017 May;37(3):267-271. English. Brief Communication. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2017.37.3.267
Lee CK , Lee HK , Ng CW , Chiu L , Tang JW , Loh TP , Koay ES .
Department of Laboratory Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore. evelyn_koay@nuhs.edu.sg
Leicester Royal Infirmary, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Department of Infection, Immunity, Inflammation, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Department of Pathology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Abstract

Owing to advancements in molecular diagnostics, recent years have seen an increasing number of laboratories adopting respiratory viral panels to detect respiratory pathogens. In December 2015, the NxTAG respiratory pathogen panel (NxTAG RPP) was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. We compared the clinical performance of this new assay with that of the xTAG respiratory viral panel (xTAG RVP) FAST v2 using 142 clinical samples and 12 external quality assessment samples. Discordant results were resolved by using a laboratory-developed respiratory viral panel. The NxTAG RPP achieved 100% concordant negative results and 86.6% concordant positive results. It detected one coronavirus 229E and eight influenza A/H3N2 viruses that were missed by the xTAG RVP FAST v2. On the other hand, the NxTAG RPP missed one enterovirus/rhinovirus and one metapneumovirus that were detected by FAST v2. Both panels correctly identified all the pathogens in the 12 external quality assessment samples. Overall, the NxTAG RPP demonstrated good diagnostic performance. Of note, it was better able to subtype the influenza A/H3N2 viruses compared with the xTAG RVP FAST v2.

Copyright © 2019. Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors.