Skip to main content
. 2020 Jun 24;58(7):e00135-20. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00135-20

TABLE 6.

Qualitative comparison of viral targets detected by BioFire PN panel and standard-of-care testing in 259 BAL specimensa

Target(s) detected by BioFire PN panel No. of BAL specimens No. (%) of BAL specimens with SOC test order for viral target(s) detected Agreement (%) between SOC and PN panel for viral target(s) detected No. (%) of BAL specimens with bacterial target codetection by PN panel
hRV/EV 17 6 (35) 6/6 (100) 7 (41)
CoV 9 2 (22) 2/2 (100) 2 (22)
FluA 5 0 (0) NA 2 (40)
FluB 2 1 (50) 1/1 (100) 1 (50)
RSV 2 0 (0) NA 0 (0)
PIV 3 1 (33) 1/1 (100) 1 (33)
hMPV 1 0 (0) NA 1 (100)
AdV 1 0 (0) NA 0 (0)
CoV+hMPV 1 1 (100) 1/1 (100) 1 (100)
hRV/EV+PIV 3 0 (0) NA 2 (66)
hRV/EV+CoV 1 0 (0) NA 1 (100)
hMPV+FluA+CoV 1 0 (0) NA 0 (0)
None detected 213 79 (37) 76/79b (96) 80 (38)
Total 259 90 (34.7) 87/90 (96.7) 98 (37.8)
a

BAL, bronchoalveolar lavage; SOC, standard-of-care molecular test; hRV/EV, human rhinovirus/enterovirus; CoV, coronavirus; FluA, influenza A virus; FluB, influenza B virus; RSV, respiratory syncytial virus; PIV, parainfluenza virus; hMPV, human metapneumovirus; AdV, adenovirus.

b

Three BAL specimens were reported as positive for an on-panel target by the standard-of-care test that was not detected by the BioFire PN panel. This included one specimen reported as positive for PIV-3 (BioFire FilmArray Respiratory panel), one specimen positive for FluA (Cepheid Xpert Flu/RSV assay), and one specimen positive for AdV (GenMark XT-8 system).