Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Commentary

Impact of Rapid Molecular Detection of Respiratory Viruses on Clinical Outcomes and Patient Management

Jane Kuypers
Michael J. Loeffelholz, Editor
Jane Kuypers
aDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael J. Loeffelholz
Cepheid
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01890-18
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

To determine if rapid molecular testing for respiratory viruses in patients with respiratory illnesses can provide advantages to patients and hospitals, rigorous investigations on the impacts of using these assays are required. Well-conducted studies are needed to inform decisions about implementation of new rapid assays to replace standard molecular testing or to initiate testing in laboratories that are currently not doing molecular tests for respiratory viruses due to the complex nature of standard panels. In this issue of the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, N. Wabe et al. (J Clin Microbiol 57:e01727-18, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01727-18) report the results of their evaluation of the impact of using a rapid molecular test for influenza A/influenza B and RSV on outcomes for adults hospitalized with respiratory illness. The median time from admission to test result of the rapid test was 7.5 h compared to 40.3 h for the standard PCR assay. Compared to the use of the standard molecular assay, use of a rapid test significantly shortened time in the hospital and reduced the number of other microbiology tests performed. The authors concluded that rapid PCR testing of adults hospitalized with respiratory illnesses could provide benefits to both the patients and the hospital. Patients were able to leave the hospital earlier and a greater proportion of them had received their test results before discharge, which would allow appropriate treatment to be provided more quickly.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal or of ASM.

COMMENTARY

Respiratory tract infections include both upper tract infections, such as the common cold, and lower tract infections, such as pneumonia, bronchitis, bronchiolitis, and exacerbation of asthma. Lower respiratory tract infections cause substantial morbidity and mortality and are a leading cause of hospitalization, especially for infants, the elderly, and immunocompromised individuals (1–4). Respiratory tract infections are caused by a wide variety of pathogens, which include several viral and bacterial agents. Although the specific viruses responsible for illness differ according to season and age of patient, symptoms and seasons are similar for many respiratory viruses (5, 6). Therefore, early and accurate laboratory diagnosis to identify the etiologic agent of a respiratory infection is important to ensure appropriate antimicrobial therapy and for the effective implementation of isolation precautions and patient cohorting.

In the past decade, the conventional diagnostic methods of culture and antigen detection assays have been replaced by molecular assays for diagnosing respiratory tract infections. Laboratory-developed and commercial multiplex real-time PCR assays, which detect a large number of different pathogens, have been developed and implemented for routine diagnostic application. These assays are highly sensitive and specific (7–11). However, they are complex to perform, involving several testing steps, including nucleic acid extraction prior to amplification and analysis, and require a laboratory turnaround time (TAT) of five to six hours. Consequently, for routine diagnostic use, these methods are best suited for batchwise testing once or twice during a laboratory shift.

To decrease the time to result and enable random access testing, rapid sample-to-result assays have been developed. These assays combine nucleic acid extraction, PCR amplification, and detection into a single step (12–14). Several utilize test cartridges for each sample that are suitable for decentralized or point-of-care testing, with a time to result of 20 min to 2 h (15, 16). Several commercial panels are available for detection of influenza A (FluA) and influenza B (FluB) and/or respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), while other products can detect 11 or more respiratory viruses and bacteria. The short TAT of these rapid assays provides several potential advantages. Patients may spend less time waiting for results and could be provided with a proper antimicrobial agent in a timely manner, usually before they leave the emergency department or hospital. Quicker diagnosis of inpatients could help determine patient isolation protocols, reduce the length of hospital stays, and decrease the number of other microbiology laboratory tests performed. A large retrospective study of the impact of rapid antigen testing for influenza on clinical care in emergency departments concluded that influenza diagnosis made in association with a rapid antigen test resulted in fewer tests and antibiotic prescriptions and more frequent use of antivirals (17).

To determine if rapid molecular testing for respiratory viruses in patients with respiratory illnesses can provide these advantages, rigorous investigations on the impacts of using these assays are required. Studies are needed to inform decisions about implementation of new rapid assays to replace standard molecular testing or decisions to implement rapid assays in laboratories that are currently not doing molecular tests for respiratory viruses due to the complex nature of standard panels. Studies are also needed regarding the type of assay that will provide more advantages, i.e., smaller panels detecting FluA and FluB and RSV or complete panels detecting many common viruses and bacteria.

Wabe et al. (18) report the results of their evaluation of the impact of using a rapid molecular test for detecting respiratory viruses on outcomes for adults hospitalized with respiratory illness. Their major finding was that use of a rapid PCR test for detection of FluA, FluB, and RSV viruses significantly shortened time in the hospital compared to the use of the standard molecular assays. Additionally, the use of the rapid test reduced the number of other microbiology tests performed. The preimplementation part of their study, conducted during six months in 2016, included an intervention group that received a standard commercial multiplex PCR assay for detection of up to 16 respiratory viruses. The median TAT for the standard test was 27.4 h. The postimplementation part of their study, conducted during the same six months in 2017, included an intervention group that received a rapid PCR for detection of FluA, FluB, and RSV. The median TAT for the rapid test was 2.3 h. Both parts of the study included a matched control group of patients who were admitted for respiratory illness during the same time periods but not tested by the respiratory virus PCR panels. The median time from admission to test result of the standard PCR assay was 40.3 h compared to 7.5 h for the rapid test. In addition to the shorter amount of time required to perform the rapid test in the laboratory, part of the overall time difference was due to placing the rapid test in two of the three study hospitals. This reduced the time that had previously been required to transport the samples to the one referral laboratory at one of the hospitals that had performed the standard assay. Another difference in time to result was due to the random-access nature of the rapid test. Each sample was tested individually, and the test could be started when the sample was delivered to the laboratory. Compared to the standard test, in which batch testing was performed one or two times each weekday and once a day on weekends, the rapid test was available 24 hours, seven days a week.

For all adults with positive results for FluA, FluB, and RSV, the use of the rapid test was associated with a statistically significant 21.5-h decrease in median hospital length of stay (LOS). In addition, the subset of patients who received their results while still in the hospital, regardless of the test result, had a significant 25.5-h reduction of LOS. There was also a significant reduction in microbiology test use, including blood cultures, sputum cultures, and bacterial and viral serologies, compared with that in patients who received standard testing. The authors concluded that rapid PCR testing of adults hospitalized with respiratory illnesses can provide benefits to both the patients and the hospital. Patients were able to leave the hospital earlier, and a greater proportion of them had received their test results before discharge, which would allow appropriate treatment to be provided more quickly. The hospital would have experienced economic benefits due to shorter LOS and lower test and procedure utilization.

The study was limited by the use of a rapid test that detected only FluA, FluB, and RSV. Twenty percent of patients in the rapid group had the standard multiplex test ordered after receiving rapid test results that were negative. This group of patients had a median LOS almost 1 day longer than that of patients in the rapid group who did not have a subsequent standard test ordered. The results of the study were also limited by comparing implementation group data acquired in two different years. A reduction in LOS when the rapid test was used could have been due to factors present during 2017 that were not present in 2016. For example, the respiratory viruses circulating in 2016 may have been more pathogenic compared to those circulating in 2017, resulting in longer hospitalization for patients infected in 2016. However, there was no significant difference in median LOS between the 2016 and 2017 control groups. Unfortunately, the authors were not able to evaluate any differences in antimicrobial use between the two groups.

Several studies have used a similar design to compare patient outcomes before and after implementation of a rapid PCR test that replaced conventional methods and/or standard multiplex PCR tests. Rappo et al. (19) tested adults in two consecutive influenza seasons using methods that included a mixture of conventional and standard PCR tests in the first year and a rapid multiplex PCR assay in the second year. They also found a shorter median TAT and a shorter length of hospital stay for the rapid test compared to the conventional and standard testing. In addition, when the rapid test was used, they reported significantly lower odds ratios for admission, duration of antimicrobial use, and number of chest radiographs. Another study evaluated antiviral use among hospitalized adults in two respiratory seasons before and after implementation of a rapid PCR assay (20). The time to result when standard PCR testing was used was 25.2 h compared to 1.7 h when the rapid test was in use. The median duration of oseltamivir use was significantly decreased when patients were tested by the rapid test. In a study of hospitalized children three months or older, in which the mean time to test result was 18.7 h for the standard test and 6.4 h for the rapid test, more patients received their result in the emergency department (51.6% versus 13.4%) when tested by the rapid test and the duration of antibiotic use was shorter (21). Patients with positive results by the rapid test also had shorter LOS and time in isolation compared to patients positive by the standard test.

Several other studies have examined the impacts of rapid detection of respiratory viruses on clinical outcomes and patient management, including hospital LOS, utilization of isolation facilities, and antimicrobial use and duration, by comparing patients tested by rapid and standard tests in the same season. One study tested patients with acute respiratory infections with both a rapid respiratory PCR panel and a standard laboratory-developed assay (22). This study found that the shorter time to result of the rapid test allowed isolation measures to be discontinued sooner in 14 of 30 patients and provided earlier results of approximately 1 day for patients receiving antimicrobial treatment. Andrews et al. (23) tested patients on alternate days in the same season by either a rapid or standard molecular test. The time from admission to test result of the rapid test was 19 h compared to 39.5 for the standard test. Use of the rapid test was not associated with changes in hospital LOS, readmission rates, or mortality, but was associated with a reduction in the median time to first dose of antivirals, allowing appropriate treatment to be given faster than when the standard test was performed. The authors noted that the study was limited by the relatively long time to test result for the rapid test. Brendish et al. (24) conducted a randomized controlled trial of adults presenting to the emergency department or acute medical unit of the hospital over two winter seasons to determine if the routine use of a rapid molecular test for respiratory viruses affected clinical outcomes compared to standard care with no testing. Patients were randomly assigned to have a rapid molecular test or routine medical care. The use of rapid testing did not reduce the proportion of patients treated with antibiotics because many patients were started on antibiotics before test results were available. However, patients in the rapid testing group had reduced LOS and improved use of antivirals for influenza, and a higher proportion received single or brief courses of antibiotics compared to the control group. For many studies, significant reductions in the use of antibiotics may be difficult to achieve, as clinicians may not readily stop broad-spectrum antibiotics before bacterial cultures are available, even when a virus has been detected.

Studies on the economic impacts of implementing rapid PCR assays for respiratory virus detection, either to replace standard laboratory developed tests or as new testing, are also needed. One analysis showed that use of a rapid PCR test instead of a laboratory-developed standard PCR test for detection of influenza was likely to be cost saving in hospitals. Cost savings were realized by a reduction in waiting time for patients in the emergency department and decreased isolation time of hospitalized patients (25). In another study, the cost-utility of treatment based on the results of rapid PCR influenza testing compared to provider judgement or treating all patients with acute respiratory illness was evaluated for adult emergency department patients who were at high risk of influenza-related complications (26). The economic benefit of using rapid PCR testing for influenza detection depended on the influenza prevalence. Treatment according to a rapid PCR test for influenza was most cost-effective when prevalence was 3% to 7%. In all but the lowest prevalences, treatment according to rapid PCR testing resulted in improved outcomes compared to those with provider judgment.

The studies cited have consistently shown that rapid molecular tests have a significantly shorter TAT compared to that of standard tests. In some studies, faster results produced reductions in LOS, laboratory test utilization, and isolation measures. Earlier test results also allowed appropriate antimicrobials to be initiated and inappropriate antimicrobials to be discontinued in a timelier manner, especially for patients with influenza. These are promising results for the use of rapid molecular testing. However, it is difficult to generalize from the currently published studies regarding the impact of rapid molecular testing for detection of respiratory viruses because they are based on many different variables, including the study site, type of patients, type of rapid assay, and whether the rapid assay replaces a standard PCR assay or is a new test offering. A summary of the studies cited is provided in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Summary of studies on the impact of rapid molecular detection of respiratory viruses on clinical outcomes and patient management

Many choices must be considered when deciding to implement rapid testing. Several rapid commercial assays are available for detection of different respiratory pathogens. Some panels detect only influenza A and B, with or without detection of RSV. Some panels detect a larger number of respiratory viruses and bacteria, which provide a wider range of diagnoses. Most rapid tests are low throughput, which could cause delays during busy respiratory seasons. Impact studies need to consider not only the benefits to both patients and hospitals but also increased costs due to additional instrumentation, additional space to put multiple instruments to achieve higher throughput, staffing additional hours to achieve more rapid results, and reagent costs. Medicare reimbursement issues should also be considered. A recent local coverage determination ruling by a Medicare contractor determined that the use of small multiplex viral panels (3 to 5 targets) in susceptible populations (hospitalized, urgent care, or emergency department patients and those seen by infectious disease specialists) was reasonable and necessary, but that the use of highly multiplexed tests (6 or more targets) as front-line diagnostics was not justified and would not be covered (27).

In summary, some studies have shown benefits to patients and lower costs to health care facilities. The decision to implement a rapid PCR assay for respiratory pathogens, either as a new test or to replace current standard PCR tests, requires consideration of both clinical and economic factors. However, because factors used to determine these benefits are unique to each health care facility, the advantages reported by others may not be realized in all settings. This is an area that could benefit from well-designed and rigorously conducted multicenter studies to determine whether specific tests or processes improve patient outcomes. Importantly, these studies should be designed using methods and standards that will allow others to use the results in evidence-based laboratory practice guidelines (28).

  • Copyright © 2019 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Piralla A,
    2. Mariani B,
    3. Rovida F,
    4. Baldanti F
    . 2017. Frequency of respiratory viruses among patients admitted to 26 intensive care units in seven consecutive winter-spring seasons (2009–2016) in Northern Italy. J Clin Virol 92:48–51. doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2017.05.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    1. Abbas S,
    2. Raybould JE,
    3. Sastry S,
    4. de la Cruz O
    . 2017. Respiratory viruses in transplant recipients: more than just a cold. Clinical syndromes and infection prevention principles. Int J Infect Dis 62:86–93. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2017.07.011.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    1. Burk M,
    2. El-Kersh K,
    3. Saad M,
    4. Wiemken T,
    5. Ramirez J,
    6. Cavallazzi R
    . 2016. Viral infection in community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Respir Rev 25:178–188. doi:10.1183/16000617.0076-2015.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Everard ML
    . 2016. Paediatric respiratory infections. Eur Respir Rev 25:36–40. doi:10.1183/16000617.0084-2015.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Tang JW,
    2. Lam TT,
    3. Zaraket H,
    4. Lipkin WI,
    5. Drews SJ,
    6. Hatchette TF,
    7. Heraud J-M,
    8. Koopmans MP,
    9. Abraham AM,
    10. Baraket A,
    11. Bialasiewicz S,
    12. Caniza MA,
    13. Chan PKS,
    14. Cohen C,
    15. Corriveau A,
    16. Cowling BJ,
    17. Drews SJ,
    18. Echavarria M,
    19. Fouchier R,
    20. Fraaij PLA,
    21. Hachette TF,
    22. Heraud J-M,
    23. Jalal H,
    24. Jennings L,
    25. Kabanda A,
    26. Kadjo HA,
    27. Khanani MR,
    28. Koay ESC,
    29. Koopmans MP,
    30. Krajden M,
    31. Lam TT,
    32. Lee HK,
    33. Lipkin WI,
    34. Lutwama J,
    35. Marchant D,
    36. Nishimura H,
    37. Nymadawa P,
    38. Pinsky BA,
    39. Rughooputh S,
    40. Rukelibuga J,
    41. Saiyed T,
    42. Shet A,
    43. Sloots T,
    44. Tamfum JJM,
    45. Tang JW,
    46. Tempia S,
    47. Tozer S,
    48. Treurnicht F,
    49. Waris M,
    50. Watanabe A,
    51. Wemakoy EO
    . 2017. Global epidemiology of non-influenza RNA respiratory viruses: data gaps and a growing need for surveillance. Lancet Infect Dis 17:e320–e326. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30238-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Thornton HV,
    2. Blair PS,
    3. Lovering AM,
    4. Muir P,
    5. Hay AD
    . 2015. Clinical presentation and microbiological diagnosis in paediatric respiratory tract infection: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 65:e69–e81. doi:10.3399/bjgp15X683497.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Beckmann C,
    2. Hirsch HH
    . 2016. Comparing Luminex NxTAG-respiratory pathogen panel and RespiFinder-22 for multiplex detection of respiratory pathogens. J Med Virol 88:1319–1324. doi:10.1002/jmv.24492.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    1. Lee J,
    2. Lee HS,
    3. Cho YG,
    4. Choi SI,
    5. Kim DS
    . 2018. Evaluation of Allplex respiratory panel 1/2/3 multiplex real-time PCR assays for detection of respiratory viruses with influenza A virus subtyping. Ann Lab Med 38:46–50. doi:10.3343/alm.2018.38.1.46.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    1. Zhang D,
    2. Mao H,
    3. Lou X,
    4. Pan J,
    5. Yan H,
    6. Tang H,
    7. Shu Y,
    8. Zhao Y,
    9. Cheng X,
    10. Tao H,
    11. Zhang Y,
    12. Ma X
    . 2018. Clinical evaluation of a panel of multiplex quantitative real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays for the detection of 16 respiratory viruses associated with community-acquired pneumonia. Arch Virol 163:2855–2860. doi:10.1007/s00705-018-3921-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    1. Kuypers J,
    2. Campbell AP,
    3. Cent A,
    4. Corey L,
    5. Boeckh M
    . 2009. Comparison of conventional and molecular detection of respiratory viruses in hematopoietic cell transplant recipients. Transpl Infect Dis 11:298–303. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3062.2009.00400.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    1. Kuypers J,
    2. Wright N,
    3. Ferrenberg J,
    4. Huang ML,
    5. Cent A,
    6. Corey L,
    7. Morrow R
    . 2006. Comparison of real-time PCR assays with fluorescent-antibody assays for diagnosis of respiratory virus infections in children. J Clin Microbiol 44:2382–2388. doi:10.1128/JCM.00216-06.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Banerjee D,
    2. Kanwar N,
    3. Hassan F,
    4. Essmyer C,
    5. Selvarangan R
    . 2018. Comparison of six sample-to-answer influenza A/B and respiratory syncytial virus nucleic acid amplification assays using respiratory specimens from children. J Clin Microbiol 56:e00930-18. doi:10.1128/JCM.00930-18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Renaud C,
    2. Crowley J,
    3. Jerome KR,
    4. Kuypers J
    . 2012. Comparison of FilmArray respiratory panel and laboratory-developed real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assays for respiratory virus detection. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 74:379–383. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.08.003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Woodberry MW,
    2. Shankar R,
    3. Cent A,
    4. Jerome KR,
    5. Kuypers J
    . 2013. Comparison of the Simplexa FluA/B & RSV Direct Kiet and laboratory-developed real time PCR assays for respiratory virus detection. J Clin Microbiol 51:3883–3885. doi:10.1128/JCM.02395-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Gibson J,
    2. Schechter-Perkins EM,
    3. Mitchell P,
    4. Mace S,
    5. Tian Y,
    6. Williams K,
    7. Luo R,
    8. Yen-Lieberman B
    . 2017. Multi-center evaluation of the cobas Liat Influenza A/B & RSV assay for rapid point of care diagnosis. J Clin Virol 95:5–9. doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2017.08.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    1. Cohen DM,
    2. Kline J,
    3. May LS,
    4. Harnett GE,
    5. Gibson J,
    6. Liang SY,
    7. Rafique Z,
    8. Rodriquez CA,
    9. McGann KM,
    10. Gaydos CA,
    11. Mayne D,
    12. Phillips D,
    13. Cohen J
    . 2018. Accurate PCR detection of influenza A/B and respiratory syncytial viruses by use of Cepheid Xpert Flu+RSV Xpress assay in point-of-care settings: Comparison to Prodess ProFlu. J Clin Microbiol 56:e01237-17. doi:10.1128/JCM.01237-17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Blaschke AJ,
    2. Shapiro DJ,
    3. Pavia AT,
    4. Byington CL,
    5. Ampofo K,
    6. Stockmann C,
    7. Hersh AL
    . 2014. A national study of the impact of rapid influenza testing on clinical care in the emergency department. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc 3:112–118. doi:10.1093/jpids/pit071.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Wabe N,
    2. Li L,
    3. Lindeman R,
    4. Yimsung R,
    5. Dahm MR,
    6. McLennan S,
    7. Clezy K,
    8. Westbrook JI,
    9. Georgiou A
    . 2018. Impact of rapid molecular diagnostic testing of respiratory viruses on outcomes of adults hospitalized with respiratory illness: a multicentre quasi-experimental study. J Clin Microbiol 57:e01727-18. doi:10.1128/JCM.01727-18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Rappo U,
    2. Schuetz AN,
    3. Jenkins SG,
    4. Calfee DP,
    5. Walsh TJ,
    6. Wells MT,
    7. Hollenberg JP,
    8. Glesby MJ
    . 2016. Impact of early detection of respiratory viruses by multiplex PCR assay on clinical outcomes in adult patients. J Clin Microbiol 54:2096–2103. doi:10.1128/JCM.00549-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Chu HY,
    2. Englund JA,
    3. Huang D,
    4. Scott E,
    5. Chan JD,
    6. Jain R,
    7. Pottinger PS,
    8. Lynch JB,
    9. Dellit TH,
    10. Jerome KR,
    11. Kuypers J
    . 2015. Impact of rapid influenza PCR testing on hospitalization and antiviral use: a retrospective cohort study. J Med Virol 87:2021–2026. doi:10.1002/jmv.24279.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Rogers BB,
    2. Shankar P,
    3. Jerris RC,
    4. Kotzbauer D,
    5. Anderson EJ,
    6. Watson JR,
    7. O'Brien LA,
    8. Uwindatwa F,
    9. McNamara K,
    10. Bost JE
    . 2015. Impact of a rapid respiratory panel test on patient outcomes. Arch Pathol Lab Med 139:636–641. doi:10.5858/arpa.2014-0257-OA.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    1. van Rijn AL,
    2. Nijhuis RHT,
    3. Bekker V,
    4. Groeneveld GH,
    5. Wessels E,
    6. Feltkamp MCW,
    7. Claas ECJ
    . 2018. Clinical implications of rapid ePlex respiratory pathogen panel testing compared to laboratory-developed real-time PCR. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 37:571–577. doi:10.1007/s10096-017-3151-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    1. Andrews D,
    2. Chetty Y,
    3. Cooper BS,
    4. Virk M,
    5. Glass SK,
    6. Letters A,
    7. Kelly PA,
    8. Sudhanva M,
    9. Jeyaratnam D
    . 2017. Multiplex PCR point of care testing versus routine, laboratory-based testing in the treatment of adults with respiratory tract infections: a quasi-randomised study assessing impact on length of stay and antimicrobiol use. BMC Infect Dis 17:671. doi:10.1186/s12879-017-2784-z.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    1. Brendish NJ,
    2. Malachira AK,
    3. Armstrong L,
    4. Houghton R,
    5. Aitken S,
    6. Nyimbili E,
    7. Ewings S,
    8. Lillie PJ,
    9. Clark TW
    . 2017. Routine molecular point-of-care testing for respiratory viruses in adults presenting to hospital with acute respiratory illness (ResPOC): a pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med 5:401–411. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(17)30120-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.↵
    1. Soto M,
    2. Sampietro-Colom L,
    3. Vilella A,
    4. Pantoja E,
    5. Asenjo M,
    6. Arjona R,
    7. Hurtado JC,
    8. Trilla A,
    9. Alvarez-Martínez MJ,
    10. Mira A,
    11. Vila J,
    12. Marcos MA
    . 2016. Economic impact of a new rapid PCR assay for detecting influenza virus in an emergency department and hospitalized patients. PLoS One 11:e0146620. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146620.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. 26.↵
    1. Dugas AF,
    2. Coleman S,
    3. Gaydos CA,
    4. Rothman R,
    5. Frick KD
    . 2013. Cost-utility of rapid polymerase chain reaction-based influenza testing for high-risk emergency department patients. Ann Emerg Med 62:80–88. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.01.005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    GenomeWeb. 2018. Palmetto final LCD denies coverage to large respiratory panels. GenomeWeb. https://www.genomeweb.com/reimbursement/palmetto-final-lcd-denies-coverage-large-respiratory-panels.
  28. 28.↵
    1. Saubolle MA,
    2. Weissfeld AS,
    3. Kraft CS
    . 2018. Designing studies acceptable for abstraction and inclusion in evidence-based laboratory practice guidelines. J Clin Microbiol doi:10.1128/JCM.00842-18.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Impact of Rapid Molecular Detection of Respiratory Viruses on Clinical Outcomes and Patient Management
Jane Kuypers
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Mar 2019, 57 (4) e01890-18; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01890-18

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Impact of Rapid Molecular Detection of Respiratory Viruses on Clinical Outcomes and Patient Management
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Impact of Rapid Molecular Detection of Respiratory Viruses on Clinical Outcomes and Patient Management
Jane Kuypers
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Mar 2019, 57 (4) e01890-18; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01890-18
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • COMMENTARY
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X