Article

Low Sensitivity of Rapid Diagnostic Test for Influenza

Influenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Clinical Infectious Diseases (Impact Factor: 9.42). 06/2009; 48(9):e89-92. DOI: 10.1086/597828
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The QuickVue Influenza A+B Test (Quidel) was used to test nasal swab specimens obtained from persons with influenza-like illness
in 3 different populations. Compared with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, the test sensitivity was low for
all populations (median, 27%; range, 19%–32%), whereas the specificity was high (median, 97%; range, 96%–99.6%).

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Stephen S. Morse, Jul 07, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
188 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) can be considered the gold standard for detection of influenza viruses due to its high sensitivity and specificity. Roche has developed the RealTime ready Influenza A/H1N1 Detection Set, consisting of a generic influenza virus A PCR targeting the M2 gene (M2 PCR) and a specific PCR targeting the hemagglutinin (HA) of A/H1N1-pdm09 (HA PCR, 2009 H1N1), with the intention to make a reliable, rapid, and simple test to detect and quantify 2009 H1N1 in clinical samples. We evaluated this kit against the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USCDC)/World Health Organization real-time PCR for influenza virus using 419 nose and throat swabs from 210 patients collected in 3 large hospitals in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. In the per-patient analysis, when compared to CDC PCR, the sensitivity and specificity of the M2 PCR were 85.8% and 97.6%, respectively; the sensitivity and specificity of HA PCR were 88.2% and 100%, respectively. In the per-sample analysis, the sensitivity and specificity in nose swabs were higher than those in throat swabs for both M2 and HA PCRs. The viral loads as determined with the M2 and HA PCRs correlated well with the Ct values of the CDC PCR. Compared with the CDC PCR, the kit has a reasonable sensitivity and very good specificity for the detection and quantification of influenza A virus and A/H1N1-pdm09. However, given the current status of 2009 H1N1, a kit that can detect all circulating seasonal influenza viruses would be preferable.
    Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease 07/2012; 74(2):131-6. DOI:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.06.003 · 2.57 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Diagnosing influenza at an early stage of illness is important for the initiation of effective antiviral treatment. However, especially in young children, influenza often commences with an abrupt onset of fever, with full-blown respiratory symptoms developing only later. We determined the feasibility of diagnosing influenza in young children already during the first signs of the illness. During confirmed influenza activity, we obtained nasal swabs from children aged 1-3 years who presented as outpatients within 24 hours of the onset of fever (≥38.0°C). The specimens were tested for influenza viruses with viral culture, antigen detection, PCR, and a rapid point-of-care test (Actim Influenza A&B, Medix Biochemica, Finland). In addition, follow-up specimens were obtained from a proportion of children 3-7 days later. Influenza virus was detected already within 24 hours of symptom onset in 56 of 61 (92%; 95% CI 82-97%) children in whom influenza was eventually confirmed in the laboratory. A total of 158 rapid tests performed within 24 hours of symptom onset yielded a sensitivity of 90% (95% CI 74-98%) for influenza A viruses but only 25% (95% CI 3-61%) for influenza B viruses (P < 0.001), resulting in an overall sensitivity of 77% (95% CI 61-89%) and specificity of 99% (95% CI 95-100%) for all influenza viruses. In most young children, influenza can already be accurately diagnosed within 24 hours of symptom onset. The rapid point-of-care test used was sensitive and specific for diagnosing influenza A, but its sensitivity for influenza B was limited.
    European Journal of Clinical Microbiology 10/2010; 30(3):387-92. DOI:10.1007/s10096-010-1098-5 · 2.54 Impact Factor
  • Source