Evaluation of the sample-to-result, random access NeuMoDx platform for viral load testing of Cytomegalovirus and Epstein Barr virus in clinical specimens

• Published in: Journal of clinical virology 2022-04, Vol.149, p.105122-105122, Article 105122
• Main Authors: Mourik, K., Boers, S.A., van Rijn, A.L., Thijssen, J.C.P., Doorn, R., Svraka, S., Bart, A., Wessels, E., Claas, E.C.J., Nijhuis, R.H.T.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: CMV; Cytomegalovirus - genetics; Cytomegalovirus Infections - diagnosis; DNA, Viral; EBV; Epstein-Barr Virus Infections - diagnosis; Fully automated; Herpesvirus 4, Human - genetics; Humans; NeuMoDx; PCR; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Viral Load
• ISSN: 1386-6532; 1873-5967
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2022.105122

•The NeuMoDx 96 and 288 are fully-automated molecular sample-in-result-out systems.•The NeuMoDx CMV and EBV assays are suitable for detection and quantification in clinical specimens.•The CMV assay of NeuMoDx is more sensitive compared to the LDT.•The Abbott m2000 EBV assay seems to under-quantify compared to the NeuMoDx assay. The detection and follow up of cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) viral loads (VL) are crucial in the management of immunocompromised patients. Recently, molecular CE-IVD assays for detection and quantification of CMV and EBV have been launched for use on the random-access and sample-to-result NeuMoDx 96 and 288 platforms (Qiagen). Evaluating the qualitative and quantitative performance of the NeuMoDx CMV and EBV assays in clinical specimens compared to a lab developed tests (LDT) and the CE-IVD assays on the Abbott m2000 system. Both a prospective and a retrospective panel, compiled of non-detectable (ND), non-quantifiable (NQ) and quantifiable VLs in plasma samples have been evaluated for both CMV and EBV: NeuMoDx versus LDT and NeuMoDx versus Abbott m2000. Quantitative agreement was determined for samples with a quantifiable VL on both systems. Qualitative and quantitative agreement between the NeuMoDx and LUMC's LDT CMV assays was 88%. Qualitative agreement between the NeuMoDx and Abbott m2000 CMV assays was 92% and quantitative agreement was 87%. Qualitative and quantitative agreement between the NeuMoDx and the LDT EBV assays was 87%. Qualitative agreement between the NeuMoDx and Abbott m2000 EBV assays was 91% and quantitative agreement was 0%. These data show that the NeuMoDx assays are suitable for both detection and quantification of CMV and EBV in a medium- to high throughput diagnostic setting, but that differences in sensitivity and quantification (for EBV, NeuMoDx versus Abbott m2000) warrant an extensive transition period when using the respective assays for following VL in patient samples.