This study evaluates the performance of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel (RS2P) for the detection of respiratory pathogens. RS2P testing was performed on 440 specimens, including 82 negatives and 358 specimens positive for 1 or more targets (520 targets initially detected). Initial testing was performed on multiple platforms during routine laboratory workflow. Specimens with discordant results on RS2P were re-tested on a different platform to obtain a consensus result based on agreement of 2/3 assays. Percent positive, negative and overall agreement (PPA, PNA, POA), as well as concordance by number of targets and CT value range were calculated. RS2P produced valid results in 439 specimens, with a POA of 91.5 % based on consensus results, with 16/31 (51.6 %) discordant specimens with >1 positive target. When individual targets were examined, PPA, PNA and POA were 93.7 %, 99.9 % and 99.6 % compared to consensus results. Overall, RS2P performed well in detection of respiratory pathogens.

OBJECTIVE: Rapid diagnosis and treatment of infectious meningitis and encephalitis (ME) is critical to minimize morbidity and mortality. Recently, Qiagen introduced the CE-IVD QIAstat-Dx ME panel (QS-ME) for syndromic diagnostic testing of meningitis and encephalitis. Some data on the performance of the QS-ME in comparison to the BioFire FilmArray ME panel are available. In this study, the performance of the QS-ME is compared to the current diagnostic workflow in two academic medical centers in the Netherlands.
METHODS: A total of 110 cerebrospinal fluid samples were retrospectively tested with the QS-ME. The results obtained were compared to the results of laboratory-developed real-time PCR assays (LDTs), IS-pro, bacterial culture, and cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) testing. In addition, the accuracy of the QS-ME was also investigated using an external quality assessment (EQA) panel consisting of ten samples.
RESULTS: Four of the 110 samples tested failed to produce a valid QS-ME result. In the remaining 106 samples, the QS-ME detected 53/53 viral targets, 38/40 bacterial targets, and 7/13 Cryptococcus neoformans targets. The discrepant bacterial results consisted of two samples that were previously tested positive for Listeria monocytogenes (CT 35.8) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (CT 40), respectively. The QS-ME detected one additional result, consisting of a varicella-zoster virus signal (CT 35.9), in a sample in which both techniques detected Streptococcus pyogenes. Finally, 100% concordance was achieved in testing a blinded bacterial ME EQA panel.
CONCLUSIONS: The QS-ME is a relevant addition to the syndromic testing landscape to assist in diagnosing infectious ME.

Rapid identification of the causative pathogens of central nervous system infections is essential for providing appropriate management and improving patient outcomes. The performance of QIAstat-Dx Meningitis/Encephalitis (ME) Panel-a multiplex PCR testing platform-in detecting pathogens implicated in meningitis and/or encephalitis was evaluated using BioFire FilmArray ME Panel as a comparator method. This multicenter study analyzed 585 retrospective residual cerebrospinal fluid specimens and 367 contrived specimens. The QIAstat-Dx ME Panel showed positive percent agreement (PPA) values of 100% for Neisseria meningitidis, Streptococcus agalactiae, Escherichia coli K1, Listeria monocytogenes, and Cryptococcus gattii/neoformans on clinical samples compared to the BioFire FilmArray ME Panel. The PPA values observed for Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae were 80% and 88.24%, respectively. Negative percent agreement (NPA) values were >99.0% for each of the six bacterial targets and one fungal target tested with clinical samples. One viral target, herpes simplex virus 1, exhibited a PPA value of 100.0%, while the remaining viral targets-human parechovirus, herpes simplex virus 2, human herpes virus 6, and varicella zoster virus-were >90.0%, with the exception of enterovirus, which had a PPA value of 77.8%. The QIAstat-Dx ME Panel detected five true-positive and four true-negative cases compared to BioFire FilmArray ME Panel. The NPA values for all viral pathogens were >99.0%. Overall, the QIAstat-Dx ME Panel showed comparable performance to the BioFire FilmArray ME Panel as a rapid diagnostic tool for community-acquired meningitis and encephalitis.

The aim of this study was to investigate the value of syndromic diagnostic testing for a better understanding of the epidemiology of gastrointestinal infections in Denmark. Here we evaluated the QIAstat-Dx® Gastrointestinal (GI) Panel 1 assay on 18,610 fecal samples requested for analysis for enteric pathogens in Region Zealand, Denmark, in 1 year (October 1, 2021, to September 30, 2022). In total, 6905 (37%) samples were detected positive for one or more diarrhoeal bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. The most common bacterial, viral, and parasitic pathogens detected with the QIAstat-Dx® Gastrointestinal Panel 1 were EPEC (in patients ≥ 2 years of age) (n = 1420 (20.6%)), rotavirus (n = 948 (13.7%)), and Cryptosporidium spp. (n = 196 (2.84%)). We identified a large diversity in infections likely reflecting substantial differences in the epidemiology including origin of infections, mode of transmission, seasonality, age-dependent susceptibility to disease, severity, and travel history. All pathogens were detected as both single and coinfections. Viral infections peaked in March with a positive rate of 31.6%, and bacterial infections peaked in August with a positive rate of 35.3%. ETEC, Shigella/EIEC, EAEC, and P. shigelloides were most related to travel activity, and coinfections were frequent. The distribution of Ct values varied significantly between the pathogens, with the lowest Ct values (median 17-18) observed in astrovirus, adenovirus, and rotavirus. Our results highlight the value of providing extensive diagnostic testing on fecal samples for sufficient detection of relevant diarrhoeal pathogens for optimal clinical care.

OBJECTIVE: Qualitative real-time polymerase chain reaction tests are not designed to provide quantitative or semiquantitative results because cycle threshold (Ct) values are not normalized to standardized controls of known concentration. The aim of this study was to characterize SARS-CoV-2 viral loads based on Ct values, using the QIAstat-Dx® Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel.
METHODS: Different lineages of SARS-CoV-2 clinical samples and the World Health Organization international standard were used to assess the linearity of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel. Limit of detection for the different lineages was characterized.
RESULTS: Comparable efficiencies and linearity for all samples resulted in R2 ≥0.99, covering a dynamic range of 1,000,000-100 copies/mL for the SARS-CoV-2 assay, showing linear correlation between Ct values and viral load down to 300 copies/mL.
CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 Ct values provided by the QIAstat-Dx® Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel could be used as a surrogate for viral load given the linear correlation between Ct values and viral concentration down to limit of detection. This panel allows to obtain reproducible Ct values for SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid downstream of the sample collection, reducing the sample-to-Ct workflow variability. Ct values can help provide a reliable assessment and comparison of viral loads in patients when tested with the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel.

Point-of-care syndromic panels allow for simultaneous and rapid detection of respiratory pathogens from nasopharyngeal swabs. The clinical performance of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 panel RP2.0 (QIAstat-Dx RP2.0) and the BioFire FilmArray Respiratory panel RP2.1 (BioFire RP2.1) was evaluated for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other common respiratory pathogens. A total of 137 patient samples were retrospectively selected based on emergency department admission, along with 33 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples tested using a WHO laboratory developed test. The limit of detection for SARS-CoV-2 was initially evaluated for both platforms. The QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 detected SARS-CoV-2 at 500 copies/mL and had a positive percent agreement (PPA) of 85%. The BioFire RP2.1 detected SARS-CoV-2 at 50 copies/mL and had a PPA of 97%. Both platforms showed a negative percent agreement of 100% for SARS-CoV-2. Evaluation of analytical specificity from a range of common respiratory targets showed a similar performance between each platform. The QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 had an overall PPA of 82% (67-100%) in clinical samples, with differences in sensitivity depending on the respiratory target. Both platforms can be used to detect acute cases of SARS-CoV-2. While the QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 is suitable for detecting respiratory viruses within a clinical range, it has less analytical and clinical sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 compared to the BioFire RP2.1.

The ePlex® and QIAstat-Dx® respiratory pathogen panels detect multiple respiratory pathogens, mainly viruses but also Legionella pneumophila, Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Bordetella pertussis. The assays have been marketed for use in nasopharyngeal swab specimens. For diagnosing bacterial pneumonia, lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens are indicated. Aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of these syndromic panels for these three bacterial targets in samples from the LRT. Fifty-six specimens were collected from our repositories, five negative samples and fifty-one samples which had been previously tested positive with the routine diagnostic real-time PCR assays for Legionella spp. (N = 20), Bordetella spp. (N = 16) or M. pneumoniae (N = 15).
The QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel V2 (RP) assay detected all of the L. pneumophila and B. pertussis positive samples but only 11/15 (73.3 %) of the M. pneumoniae targets. The ePlex Respiratory Pathogen Panel (RPP) assay detected 10/14 (71.4 %) of the L. pneumophila targets, 8/12 (66.7 %) of the B. pertussis positive samples and 13/15 (86.7 %) of the M. pneumoniae targets.
No false-positive results were reported for all three bacterial pathogens by both assays. The clinical performance of both assays depended highly on the bacterial load in the sample and the type of specimen under investigation.

QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel V2 (RP) is a novel molecular-method-based syndromic test for the simultaneous and rapid (∼70-min) detection of 18 viral and 3 bacterial pathogens causing respiratory infections. This report describes the first multicenter retrospective comparison of the performance of the QIAstat-Dx RP assay to the established ePlex Respiratory Pathogen Panel (RPP) assay, for which we used 287 respiratory samples from patients suspected with respiratory infections. The QIAstat-Dx RP assay detected 312 (92%) of the 338 respiratory targets that were detected by the ePlex RPP assay. Most of the discrepant results have been observed in the low-pathogen-load samples. In addition, the QIAstat-Dx RP assay detected 19 additional targets in 19 respiratory samples that were not detected by the ePlex RPP assay. Nine of these discordant targets were considered to represent true positives after discrepancy testing by a third method. The main advantage of the QIAstat-Dx system compared to other syndromic testing systems, including the ePlex RPP assay, is the ability to generate cycle threshold (CT ) values, which could help with the interpretation of results. Taking the data together, this study showed good performance of the QIAstat-Dx RP assay in comparison to the ePlex RPP assay for the detection of respiratory pathogens. The QIAstat-Dx RP assay offers a new, rapid, and accurate sample-to-answer multiplex panel for the detection of the most common viral and bacterial respiratory pathogens and therefore has the potential to direct appropriate therapy and infection control precautions.

Detection and identification of enteropathogens that cause infectious gastroenteritis are essential steps for appropriate patient treatment and effective isolation precautions. Several syndrome-based tests have recently become available, with the gastrointestinal panel (GIP) assay on the QIAstat-Dx as the most recent addition to the syndromic testing landscape. The QIAstat-Dx GIP assay offers simultaneous testing for 24 bacterial, viral, and parasitic enteropathogens using a single test that reports the results in 70 min. In this study, we compared the performance of the GIP assay to laboratory-developed real-time PCR assays (LDTs), using 172 prospectively and retrospectively collected fecal samples from patients suspected to have infectious gastroenteritis. The GIP assay detected 97/107 enteropathogens (91%) that were detected by LDTs, and the overall agreement of results increased to 95% when excluding discrepant results with cycle threshold (CT ) values of >35. Further, the GIP assay detected 42 additional enteropathogens that were not detected, or tested, by LDTs. These included 35 diarrheagenic Escherichia coli targets for which the clinical relevance is unclear for most. The main advantage of the QIAstat-Dx system compared to other syndromic testing systems is the ability to generate CT values that could help with the interpretation of results. However, compared to LDTs, the GIP assay is limited by flexibility and high-throughput testing. In conclusion, the GIP assay offers an easy, sample-to-answer workflow with a rapid detection of the most common enteropathogens and therefore has the potential to direct appropriate therapy and infection control precautions.