• Kanti Pabbaraju, Sallene Wong, Kara L Tokaryk, Kevin Fonseca, and Steven J Drews.
• Provincial Laboratory for Public Health, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. K.Pabbaraju@provlab.ab.ca
• J. Clin. Microbiol. 2011 May 1; 49 (5): 1738-44.

AbstractNucleic acid tests are sensitive and specific and provide a rapid diagnosis, making them invaluable for patient and outbreak management. Multiplex PCR assays have additional advantages in providing an economical and comprehensive panel for many common respiratory viruses. Previous reports have shown the utility of the xTAG respiratory viral panel (RVP) assay manufactured by Luminex Molecular Diagnostics for this purpose. A newer generation of this kit, released in Canada in early 2010, is designed to simplify the procedure and reduce the turnaround time by about 24 h. The assay methodology and targets included in this version of the kit are different; consequently, the objective of this study was to compare the detection of a panel of respiratory viral targets using the older Luminex xTAG RVP (RVP Classic) assay with that using the newer xTAG RVP Fast assay. This study included 334 respiratory specimens that had been characterized for a variety of respiratory viral targets; all samples were tested by both versions of the RVP assay in parallel. Overall, the RVP Classic assay was more sensitive than the RVP Fast assay (88.6% and 77.5% sensitivities, respectively) for all the viral targets combined. Targets not detected by the RVP Fast assay included primarily influenza B virus, parainfluenza virus type 2, and human coronavirus 229E. A small number of samples positive for influenza A virus, respiratory syncytial virus B, human metapneumovirus, and parainfluenza virus type 1 were not detected by the RVP Classic assay and in general had low viral loads.

23 keywords...

hide…