Korologos D and others. 2009. Evaluation of multiple test methods for the detection of the novel 2009 influenza A (H1N1) during the New York City outbreak

Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Lake Success, NY 11042, USA.
Journal of clinical virology: the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology (Impact Factor: 3.02). 06/2009; 45(3):191-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2009.06.005
Source: PubMed


In response to the novel influenza A H1N1 outbreak in the NY City area, 6090 patient samples were submitted over a 5-week period for a total of 14,114 viral diagnostic tests, including rapid antigen, direct immunofluorescence (DFA), viral culture and PCR. Little was known about the performance of the assays for the detection of novel H1N1 in the background of seasonal H1N1, H3N2 and other circulating respiratory viruses. In addition, subtyping influenza A became critical for the identification of high risk and/or hospitalized patients with novel H1N1 infection and for monitoring the spread of the outbreak.
This study analyzed the performances of the BinaxNOW Influenza A&B test (BinaxNOW), the 3M Rapid Detection Flu A+B test (3MA+B), direct immunofluorescence, R-Mix culture and the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Virus Panel (RVP) for the detection of seasonal influenza, novel H1N1 and other respiratory viruses. RVP was also evaluated for its ability to differentiate seasonal H1N1, H3N2 and novel H1N1.
The sensitivities, specificities, PPVs and NPVs for the detection of novel H1N1, determined by comparing all four-test methods, were: rapid antigen: 17.8%, 93.6%, 77.4%, 47.9%; DFA: 46.7%, 94.5%, 91.3%, 58.9%; R-Mix culture: 88.9%, 100%, 100%, 87.9%; RVP: 97.8%, 100%, 100%, 97.3%. The individual sensitivities of BinaxNOW and 3MA+B as compared to R-Mix culture for the detection of novel H1N1 were 9.6% and 40%, respectively. All unsubtypeable influenza A specimens identified by RVP and tested with the CDC novel H1N1 specific RT-PCR assay were confirmed to be novel H1N1.
Rapid antigen tests, DFA, R-Mix culture and the xTAG RVP test all detected the novel H1N1 strain, but with highly varied sensitivity. The RVP test provided the best diagnostic option as RVP demonstrated superior sensitivity for the detection of all influenza strains, including the novel H1N1, provided accurate influenza A subtyping and identified a significant number of additional respiratory pathogens.

Download full-text


Available from: Christine C Ginocchio, Jan 15, 2014
  • Source
    • "A more specific and reliable option is real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). It provides quantitative read outs, but is time-consuming, expensive, requires trained professionals, and is not feasible for point-of-care application at clinics [6] [7]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Surface acoustic wave (SAW) sensors using Love wave were designed and fabricated with SiO 2 -coated piezoelectric LiNbO 3 wafers for Influenza A viral antigen detection, in which the targeted analyte was selectively captured at the surface through the antigen and antibody interaction enabled with appropriate surface functionalization. It was found that triethoxysilylbutylaldehyde (ALTES) and triethoxysilylun-decanal ethylene glycol acetal (ACTES) are effective chemical reagents for immobilizing Influenza A hemagglutinin (HA) antibodies on the SiO 2 /LiNbO 3 SAW surface. The detection limit of Influenza A HA H1N1 antigen at an analyte concentration as low as 1 ng mL −1 was demonstrated without any compen-sation design at room temperature with our obtained SAW sensors with the HA antibodies immobilized at ALTES-functionalized surface.
    Sensors and Actuators B Chemical 11/2015; 209:78-84. DOI:10.1016/j.snb.2014.11.103 · 4.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "RT-PCR is the preferred diagnostic assay for influenza virus. These tests are the most sensitive and specific and can differentiate between influenza types (A or B) and subtypes [72]. The main problem of this technique is that it could not be available in all laboratories, so there is a need of other tests in these settings. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nucleic acid amplification techniques are commonly used currently to diagnose viral diseases and manage patients with this kind of illnesses. These techniques have had a rapid but unconventional route of development during the last 30 years, with the discovery and introduction of several assays in clinical diagnosis. The increase in the number of commercially available methods has facilitated the use of this technology in the majority of laboratories worldwide. This technology has reduced the use of some other techniques such as viral culture based methods and serological assays in the clinical virology laboratory. Moreover, nucleic acid amplification techniques are now the methods of reference and also the most useful assays for the diagnosis in several diseases. The introduction of these techniques and their automation provides new opportunities for the clinical laboratory to affect patient care. The main objectives in performing nucleic acid tests in this field are to provide timely results useful for high-quality patient care at a reasonable cost, because rapid results are associated with improvements in patients care. The use of amplification techniques such as polymerase chain reaction, real-time polymerase chain reaction or nucleic acid sequence-based amplification for virus detection, genotyping and quantification have some advantages like high sensitivity and reproducibility, as well as a broad dynamic range. This review is an up-to-date of the main nucleic acid techniques and their clinical applications, and special challenges and opportunities that these techniques currently provide for the clinical virology laboratory.
    The Open Virology Journal 11/2012; 6(1):104-14. DOI:10.2174/1874357901206010104
  • Source
    • "The overall specificity of RIDT (91%) is similar to what has been reported in the literature for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 (86% to 100%), however, results among certain subgroups and test types were much lower than expected [3], [4], [5], [8], [11], [19], [20]. Since RIDT and IFA tests were performed in the clinical setting and PCR testing was performed at a different facility, it is possible that some RIDT and IFA tests were truly positive and the specimens lost integrity during transport to OCPHL. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Performance of indirect fluorescent antibody (IFA) assays and rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDT) during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic was evaluated, along with the relative effects of age and illness severity on test accuracy. Clinicians and laboratories submitted specimens on patients with respiratory illness to public health from April to mid October 2009 for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing as part of pandemic H1N1 surveillance efforts in Orange County, CA; IFA and RIDT were performed in clinical settings. Sensitivity and specificity for detection of the 2009 pandemic H1N1 strain, now officially named influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, were calculated for 638 specimens. Overall, approximately 30% of IFA tests and RIDTs tested by PCR were falsely negative (sensitivity 71% and 69%, respectively). Sensitivity of RIDT ranged from 45% to 84% depending on severity and age of patients. In hospitalized children, sensitivity of IFA (75%) was similar to RIDT (84%). Specificity of tests performed on hospitalized children was 94% for IFA and 80% for RIDT. Overall sensitivity of RIDT in this study was comparable to previously published studies on pandemic H1N1 influenza and sensitivity of IFA was similar to what has been reported in children for seasonal influenza. Both diagnostic tests produced a high number of false negatives and should not be used to rule out influenza infection.
    PLoS ONE 03/2012; 7(3):e33097. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0033097 · 3.23 Impact Factor
Show more