Melting curve analysis reveals false-positive norovirus detection in a molecular syndromic panel.

BACKGROUND

Molecular syndromic panels can improve rapidity of results and ease clinical laboratory workflow, although caution has been raised for potential false-positive results. Upon implementation of a new panel for infectious diarrhea (BioFire® FilmArray® Gastrointestinal [GI] Panel, bioMérieux) in our clinical laboratory, a higher than expected number of stool samples with norovirus were detected.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to investigate positive percent agreement and the false-positive rate of norovirus detected by the multiplex BioFire GI panel compared to a singleplex commercial assay.

STUDY DESIGN

From October 2023 to January 2024, all prospective stool samples with a positive norovirus result by BioFire had melting curves reviewed manually using the BioFire FilmArray Torch System. Stool samples further underwent testing by a supplementary real-time RT-PCR assay (Xpert® Norovirus, Cepheid) for comparative analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 50 stool samples with norovirus detected by BioFire, 18 (36 %) tested negative by Xpert (deemed "false-positives"). Furthermore, melting curve analysis revealed nearly all of these samples had atypical melting curve morphologies for the "Noro-1" target on BioFire (16/18, 89 %), which was statistically significant (Odds Ratio 173.2, 95 % CI [22.2, 5326.9], p < 0.0001). Stool samples with multiple pathogens detected by BioFire including norovirus were not more likely to produce false-positive norovirus results (Odds Ratio 1, 95 % CI [0.3, 3.3], p = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Although not described in the manufacturer's Instructions for Use, we propose routine manual review of melting curves for the BioFire GI panel prior to reporting, to mitigate potential false-positive norovirus results.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.