Performance of Different Mono- and Multiplex Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests on a Multipathogen External Quality Assessment Panel

Abstract

An external quality assessment (EQA) panel consisting of a total of 48 samples in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid or transport medium was prepared in collaboration with Quality Control for Molecular Diagnostics (QCMD) (www.qcmd.org). The panel was used to assess the proficiency of the three laboratories that would be responsible for examining the 6,000 samples to be collected in the GRACE Network of Excellence (www.grace-lrti.org). The main objective was to decide on the best-performing testing approach for the detection of influenza viruses A and B, parainfluenza virus types 1 to 3, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus, coronavirus, rhinovirus, adenovirus, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Legionella pneumophila by nucleic acid amplification techniques (NAATs). Two approaches were chosen: (i) laboratories testing samples using their in-house procedures for extraction and amplification and (ii) laboratories using their in-house amplification procedures on centrally extracted samples. Furthermore, three commercially available multiplex NAAT tests-the ResPlex (Qiagen GmbH, Hilden, Germany), RespiFinder plus (PathoFinder, Maastricht, The Netherlands), and RespiFinder Smart 21 (PathoFinder) tests-were evaluated by examination of the same EQA panel by the manufacturer. No large differences among the 3 laboratories were noticed when the performances of the assays developed in-house in combination with the in-house extraction procedures were compared. Also, the extraction procedure (central versus local) had little effect on performance. However, large differences in amplification efficacy were found between the commercially available tests; acceptable results were obtained by using the PathoFinder assays.