Key result
In 155 clinical specimens, the Biofire ME panel on dermal swabs correctly discriminated all HSV-1, HSV-2, VZV, HHV-6, EVs, and HPeVs from mpox and mpox-mimickers.
Why the study?
Mpox rash mimics other viral exanthems, and while the BioFire ME panel simultaneously detects common rash-causing viruses, it is only licensed for cerebrospinal fluid.
Can the BioFire ME panel accurately detect and discriminate common viral exanthems from dermal or mucocutaneous swabs in patients investigated for mpox?
Can the BioFire ME panel accurately detect and discriminate common viral exanthems from dermal or mucocutaneous swabs in patients investigated for mpox?
The Biofire ME panel can be repurposed for dermal swabs to streamline diagnostic testing for viral exanthems mimicking mpox.
May support off-label lesion testing with BioFire ME for HSV/VZV rash differentials; leaves open need for validation before routine use.
BACKGROUND: Mpox (formerly monkeypox) is an emerging zoonotic disease of public health concern that presents as a rash mimicking other common viral exanthems. Unlike traditional testing algorithms relying on several assays, the BioFire FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis (ME) panel simultaneously detects common viruses causing rashes; however, Biofire ME is only licensed for testing on cerebral spinal fluid. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated use of the Biofire ME panel for detection and discrimination of herpes simplex virus types 1 and 2 (HSV-1 and HSV-2), varicella zoster virus (VZV), human herpesviruses type 6 (HHV-6), enteroviruses (EVs), and human paraechoviruses (HPeVs) from a dermal or mucocutaneous swabs collected in universal transport media (UTM). STUDY DESIGN: Results of the BioFire ME panel were compared against methods used during clinical testing. Ten-fold serial dilutions in UTM of cultured viruses were used to compare analytical sensitivity, and analytical specificity was assessed using panels of microorganisms in UTM. Clinical sensitivity and specificity were assessed using 20 positive specimens each for HHV-1, HHV-2, HHV-6, VZV, EVs, and HPeV, as well as 35 known negative specimens that included 15 mpox-positive specimens. RESULTS: Biofire ME was as sensitive as comparator methods, and correctly discriminated all HSV-1, HSV-2, VZV, HHV-6, EVs, and HPeVs from mpox and mpox-mimickers. Cross-reaction between EV and rhinoviruses A, B, and C were noted in the specificity panel. CONCLUSIONS: Swabs in UTM collected for mpox testing are suitable for use on the Biofire ME panel, allowing more streamlined diagnostic testing for viral exanthems in patients under investigation for mpox infection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Joy et al. (2022) studied Viral exanthems (mpox and mpox-mimickers) (n=155). BioFire FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis (ME) panel vs. Standard clinical testing methods was evaluated on Detection and discrimination of HSV-1, HSV-2, VZV, HHV-6, EVs, and HPeVs. In 155 clinical specimens, the Biofire ME panel on dermal swabs correctly discriminated all HSV-1, HSV-2, VZV, HHV-6, EVs, and HPeVs from mpox and mpox-mimickers.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: