Open AccessEvaluation of the FilmArray ® Respiratory Panel for Clinical Use in a Large Children's Hospital
Author(s) -
Couturier Marc Roger,
Barney Trenda,
Alger Garrison,
Hymas Weston C.,
Stevenson Jeffery B.,
Hillyard David,
Daly Judy A.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
journal of clinical laboratory analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.536
H-Index - 50
eISSN - 1098-2825
pISSN - 0887-8013
DOI - 10.1002/jcla.21576
Subject(s) - multiplex , concordance , rhinovirus , medicine , multiplex polymerase chain reaction , respiratory system , virology , polymerase chain reaction , biology , bioinformatics , biochemistry , gene
Background Respiratory pathogens are a leading cause of hospital admission and traditional detection methods are time consuming and insensitive. Multiplex molecular detection methods have recently been investigated in hope of replacing these traditional techniques with rapid panel‐based testing. Objectives This study evaluated the F ilm A rray ® R espiratory P anel ([ FARP ], Idaho Technology Inc., Salt Lake City, UT ) as a replacement for direct fluorescent antibody ( DFA ) testing in a pediatric hospital. Methods Eleven of the 21 FARP analytes (Adenovirus, B ordetella pertussis , human M etapneumovirus, I nfluenza A, I nfluenza A H 1 N 1 2009, I nfluenza B, P arainfluenza [1, 2, & 3], R espiratory S yncytial V irus, and rhinovirus) were evaluated using nasopharyngeal specimens. Positive samples were pooled in groups of 5. Samples identified by reference methods as positive for respiratory pathogens were used for the majority of positive samples. DFA was the reference method for ten analytes; L uminex TM x TAG R espiratory V irus P anel ( RVP ) was the reference method for rhinovirus. Discrepant results were resolved by positive culture and fluorescent antibody stain and/or laboratory‐developed real‐time polymerase chain reaction ( PCR ) assays ( LDT ). Results The agreement for most analytes was in concordance with the established reference methods with the exception of A denovirus. Additionally, the FARP detected several pathogens not previously detected by DFA , and most were confirmed by LDT . Several DFA ‐positive analytes were confirmed as true‐negatives by the FARP and LDT . Conclusion FARP overall performed better than DFA with the exception of A denovirus, making the FARP an attractive alternative to laboratories looking to replace DFA with a rapid, user‐friendly, multiplex molecular assay. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 27:148–154, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.