Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Apr:171:105659.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2024.105659. Epub 2024 Feb 23.

Performance of the Xpert™ Mpox PCR assay with oropharyngeal, anorectal, and cutaneous lesion swab specimens

Affiliations

Performance of the Xpert™ Mpox PCR assay with oropharyngeal, anorectal, and cutaneous lesion swab specimens

Gregory L Damhorst et al. J Clin Virol. 2024 Apr.

Abstract

Anorectal and oropharyngeal exposures are implicated in sexual transmission of mpox, but authorized assays in the United States are only validated with cutaneous lesion swabs. Diagnostic assays for anorectal and oropharyngeal swabs are needed to address potential future outbreaks. The Cepheid Xpert® Mpox is the first point-of-care assay to receive FDA emergency use authorization in the United States and would be a valuable tool for evaluating these sample types. Our exploratory study demonstrates 100 % positive agreement with our in-house PCR assay for natural positive anorectal and oropharyngeal specimens and 92 % sensitivity with low-positive spiked specimens. The Xpert® assay detected viral DNA in specimens not detected by our reference PCR assay from four participants with mpox DNA at other sites, suggesting it may be more sensitive at low viral loads. In conclusion, the validation of the Xpert® for oropharyngeal and anorectal sample types can be rapidly achieved if clinical need returns and prospective samples become available.

Keywords: Anorectal swab; Diagnostic; Mpox; Oropharyngeal swab; Point-of-care; Sexually transmitted infections.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Anandi Sheth reports financial support was provided by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Wilbur Lam reports financial support was provided by National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering. Wilbur Lam reports equipment, drugs, or supplies was provided by Cepheid. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. The Xpert® Mpox assay demonstrates 100% PPA and likely has a lower LOD compared to the NVAR reference assay.
Concentric circles indicate the results of the Xpert Mpox assay (smaller circle) and the reference assay (larger circle). Gray shading represents negative results. Green shading represent positive natural specimens while blue shading represents positive contrived specimens.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Lower Ct values were observed with Xpert® OPX compared to the NVAR reference assay and lower MPX Ct values compared to OPX Ct values were observed within the Xpert® Mpox assay.
Correlation of Ct values between the Xpert® OPX target and NVAR qPCR reference assay for (A) oropharyngeal, (B) anorectal, and (C) lesion swab specimens showed generally lower Ct values produced by the Xpert® in the oropharyngeal and cutaneous lesions specimens. This was not as apparent in the anorectal swab specimens, but there are few data points and most have a low Ct value. Several specimens that were not detected by the NVAR assay produced positive results with high Ct values on the Xpert® assay. (D) Within the Xpert® results, MPX targets produced consistently lower Ct values than OPX targets.MPX, Xpert MPXV clade-II target; OPX, Xpert non-variola Orthopoxvirus target; NVAR, non-variola Orthopoxvirus reference assay; Ct, cycle threshold.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Thornhill JP, Barkati S, Walmsley S, Rockstroh J, Antinori A, Harrison LB, et al. Monkeypox Virus Infection in Humans across 16 Countries - April-June 2022. N Engl J Med 2022;387:679–91. 10.1056/NEJMoa2207323. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gandhi PA, Patro SK, Sandeep M, Satapathy P, Shamim MA, Kumar V, et al. Oral manifestation of the monkeypox virus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2023;56:101817. 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101817. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. CDC. Science brief: Detection and transmission of mpox (formerly monkeypox) virus during the 2022 clade IIb outbreak. 2023. Accessed: 10/11/2023. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/124367.
    1. Tarín-Vicente EJ, Alemany A, Agud-Dios M, Ubals M, Suñer C, Antón A, et al. Clinical presentation and virological assessment of confirmed human monkeypox virus cases in Spain: a prospective observational cohort study. The Lancet 2022;400:661–9. 10.1016/s0140-6736(22)01436-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Suñer C, Ubals M, Tarín-Vicente EJ, Mendoza A, Alemany A, Hernández-Rodríguez Á, et al. Viral dynamics in patients with monkeypox infection: a prospective cohort study in Spain. Lancet Infect Dis 2022. 10.1016/s1473-3099(22)00794-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types