tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017 Feb 2. pii: S0732-8893(17)30034-2. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2017.01.015. [Epub ahead of print]
[h=1]Necessity to critically review the automatic results of the Xpert Flu assay.[/h] Engelmann I[SUP]1[/SUP], Alidjinou EK[SUP]2[/SUP], Lazrek M[SUP]2[/SUP], Dewilde A[SUP]2[/SUP], Hober D[SUP]2[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] While using the Xpert Flu assay we became aware of false-negative results. The study aimed to analyze the causes of these false-negative results. One hundred fifty-nine respiratory specimens were tested in the Xpert Flu assay and in multiplex reverse transcription-polymerase chain reactions (RT-PCRs) for respiratory viruses. Discordant specimens were tested in the Influenza A/B r-gene assay. One hundred fifty-two (96%) and 151 (95%) specimens yielded concordant results for influenza A and B, respectively. Fifteen specimens tested negative in the Xpert Flu assay and positive in a multiplex RT-PCR. Positive results were confirmed for 12 of these specimens in the Influenza A/B r-gene assay. Xpert Flu assay amplification curves and endpoints suggested that the false-negative results were mainly due to erroneous automatic result interpretation. We report false-negative results of the Xpert Flu assay due to erroneous automatic result interpretation. Careful analysis of amplification curves and endpoints is needed to avoid reporting of false-negative results.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Discordance; Flu; Influenza; Molecular diagnostic techniques; PCR; Point-of-care
PMID: 28214222 DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2017.01.015
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
[h=1]Necessity to critically review the automatic results of the Xpert Flu assay.[/h] Engelmann I[SUP]1[/SUP], Alidjinou EK[SUP]2[/SUP], Lazrek M[SUP]2[/SUP], Dewilde A[SUP]2[/SUP], Hober D[SUP]2[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] While using the Xpert Flu assay we became aware of false-negative results. The study aimed to analyze the causes of these false-negative results. One hundred fifty-nine respiratory specimens were tested in the Xpert Flu assay and in multiplex reverse transcription-polymerase chain reactions (RT-PCRs) for respiratory viruses. Discordant specimens were tested in the Influenza A/B r-gene assay. One hundred fifty-two (96%) and 151 (95%) specimens yielded concordant results for influenza A and B, respectively. Fifteen specimens tested negative in the Xpert Flu assay and positive in a multiplex RT-PCR. Positive results were confirmed for 12 of these specimens in the Influenza A/B r-gene assay. Xpert Flu assay amplification curves and endpoints suggested that the false-negative results were mainly due to erroneous automatic result interpretation. We report false-negative results of the Xpert Flu assay due to erroneous automatic result interpretation. Careful analysis of amplification curves and endpoints is needed to avoid reporting of false-negative results.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Discordance; Flu; Influenza; Molecular diagnostic techniques; PCR; Point-of-care
PMID: 28214222 DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2017.01.015
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]