Journal of Clinical Virology - Volume 82 - Supplement 1 - September 2016

37 / 152

Abstracts / Journal of Clinical Virology 82S (2016) S1–S142 S33
Conclusions: In our study, Seegene RV16 demonstrated higher
sensitivity than Biofire RP Panel. Although Biofire RP Panel is sim-
pler to run, allows for random access and comes with a shorter
turnaround time, its capacity for high-throughput testing would
be limited by the number of instruments available. Contrastingly,
RV16 requires less effort using batch testing, which is suitable for
outbreak situations when there is large influx of patient samples.
Abstract no: 185
Presentation at ESCV 2016: Poster 24
Performance comparison of the new filmarray
meningitis/encephalitis panel with routine
diagnostic methods
Nicole von Allmen ∗ nke Edelmann
Sebastian Kuehn
1 Labor Berlin – Charite Vivantes Services GmbH,
Germany
2 Labor Berlin – Charite Vivantes GmbH, Germany
Background: Meningitis is the inflammatory disease of mem-
branes that surround the brain and spinal cord. The inflammation of
the brain itself is known as encephalitis. Viruses, bacteria, fungi or
parasites may cause these life-threatening infections. In particular,
young, elderly and immunocompromised persons are of increased
risk. The incidence of acute encephalitis in Western countries is
7.4 cases per 100,000 population per year. For effective patient
management and to minimize morbidity and mortality, prompt
diagnosis is crucial.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the application of
the Film Array (FA) Meningitis/Encephalitis panel (ME) for clini-
cal diagnostics. Retrospective and prospective cerebrospinal fluid
(CSF) clinical samples were tested in comparison with the methods
routinely applied in our laboratory for the testing of pathogens in
CSF specimens.
Material and methods: Residual CSF samples from patients
with a high suspicion of a meningitis/encephalitis infection were
included in this study. All samples were tested beforehand (stored
frozen at −20 ◦ C) or in parallel with the validated routine labora-
tory methods which were considered to be the reference methods
(viruses: in-house real-time PCR; bacteria: conventional culture
and MALDI-TOF). For this method validation, 200 l CSF resid-
ual sample volume was tested with the FA ME panel. FA is an
automated highly multiplexed closed PCR platform/system that
detects 6 bacteria: Escherichia coli K1, Haemophilus influenzae, Lis-
teriamonocytogenes, Neisseriameningitidis, Streptococcus agalactiae,
Streptococcus pneumoniae, 7 viruses: cytomegalovirus, enterovirus,
herpes simplex type 1, herpes simplex type 2, human herpesvirus
6, human parechovirus, varicella zoster virus, 2 fungi: Cryptococcus
neoformans/gattii.
Results: A total of 191 CSF specimens were tested. Initially, 178
FA ME results (93.2%) were consistent with the results of the ref-
erence methods. 9 of the 13 CSF specimens with discrepant results
had to be excluded from the final statistical analysis since no mate-
rial was left for confirmation testing. From these 13 discrepant
results, 7 were prospective and 6 retrospective specimens. Only in
four cases confirmation testing could be performed. Nevertheless,
the analyzed data showed a final concordance between the refer-
ence methods and FA ME of 99.4%. Pathogens detected included:
Listeria monocytogenes, Neisseria meningitidis, Streptococcus agalac-
tiae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, enterovirus, herpes simplex type 1
and 2, human herpesvirus 6, varicella zoster virus and Cryptococcus
neoformans/gatti.
Conclusions: Based on the results acquired in this study, the
FA ME panel is of great value for the management of menin-
gitis/encephalitis suspected cases where a comprehensive (14
pathogens) and fast response (in approximately 1 h) may help pre-
vent secondary complications or evenmake a life-saving difference.
This is particularly true for bacterial infections where an immi-
nent antibiotic therapy is crucial for the whole recovery of the
patient. As the clinical symptoms of a bacterial and viral infection
for meningitis and encephalitis are often overlapping, the correct
clinical diagnosis is not obvious. For the most common infectious
pathogens included in the panel, this dilemma is solved by the use
of FA ME.
Abstract no: 192
Presentation at ESCV 2016: Poster 25
The novel ARIES platform demonstrates
simplified molecular workflows and enhanced
lab efficiency
Shuba Das ∗, Frank Simons , Ricardo Perez ,
Allen Ward , Sherry Dunbar
1 Luminex Corporation, United States
2 Luminex B.V., United States
Background: Diagnostic laboratories are continuously looking
for ways to maximize productivity, improve workflow, optimize
staff time, and reduce the time to deliver results back to health-
care providers. In addition, there is a desire to shift from traditional
testing methods to faster, more sensitive, and more cost-effective
molecular methods. In this study, a time andmotion studywas con-
ducted using Luminex ARIES system. ARIES is an automated, sample
to answer platform that fully integrates extraction of nucleic acid
from clinical samples, real-time PCR detection, data analysis, and
results reporting.
Material/methods: In this study the Xpert GBS LB and ARIES
HSV 1&2 assays were used as the Xpert GBS LB assay does not
require any pre-processing steps and is most similar to ARIES
workflow. The goal of this study was to compared hands-on time
for ARIES and Cepheid GeneXpert systems, including hands-on
time required to set up various numbers of samples, data entry,
patient/sample information entry, and then starting the run for
both systems. Two different scenarios were assessed for ARIES –
(i) entering test order, sample, and assay information at the instru-
ment using the barcode reader provided (standard workflow), and
(ii) sample and cassette scanned in advance and sent to ARIES by
LIS (LIS-enabled).
Results: The average time needed to load one sample was 52 s
for GeneXpert and 71 s and 34 s for ARIES in standard workflow and
LIS-enabled mode, respectively. For 16 samples, GeneXpert took
10min 10 s while ARIES required 9min 52 s (standard workflow)
and 4min 58 s (LIS-enabled mode). The reduction in hands-on time
was very explicit when ARIES was configured in the LIS-enabled
mode (no additional manual scanning required). A reduction in
hands-on time of 45% was observed when loading 12 samples into
ARIES in LIS-enabled mode as compared to GeneXpert.
Conclusions: In this time and motion study, we found that on
average the set up time favored ARIES as compared to GeneXpert
as less hands-on time and fewer user interactions were required.
This was most pronounced if the number of samples approached
six as setting up a run for a single sample was 19 s faster on GeneX-
pert. In general, ARIES showed reduced hands-on time, enhanced