Performance of a rapid antigen test (Binax NOW® RSV) for diagnosis of respiratory syncytial virus compared with real-time polymerase chain reaction in a pediatric population.

Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, 4055 Tudor Centre Dr., Anchorage, AK 99508, USA.
Journal of clinical virology: the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology (Impact Factor: 3.47). 03/2011; 50(3):240-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2010.11.011
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Infants from Alaska's Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta (YKD) have a high respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) hospitalization rate (104/1000/yr). Appropriate patient management requires rapid and accurate RSV diagnosis. Antigen-based methods are often used in clinical settings, but these tests can lack sensitivity.
We compared Binax NOW(®) RSV (BN) used for RSV diagnosis in the YKD hospital with a real-time polymerase chain reaction assay (RT-qPCR) used for viral surveillance.
Between October 2005 and September 2007 we obtained nasopharyngeal washes (NPW) from children <3 years hospitalized with a lower respiratory tract infection. The NPW were tested using BN and RT-qPCR.
79/311 (25%) children had RSV infection as determined by RT-qPCR. As compared with RT-qPCR, sensitivity and specificity of BN were 72% and 97%, respectively. The sensitivity of BN was higher in children <1 year compared with children ≥ 1 year (79% vs. 52%; p=0.025), children with bronchiolitis compared with children without bronchiolitis (89% vs. 38%; p<0.001), and children with a shorter duration of symptoms before testing (0-1 (92%) vs. 2-4 (78%) vs. 5+ (65%) days; p=0.04). The median RSV viral load in NPW positive by BN and RT-qPCR was 1.01 × 10(9)copies/mL vs. a median of 5.25 × 10(7)copies/mL for NPW positive by RT-qPCR only (p<0.001).
RT-qPCR is more sensitive than BN in detecting RSV infection. BN sensitivity is high in children with bronchiolitis, but the sensitivity is low when children present with a non-bronchiolitis illness, especially after a longer duration of symptoms before testing.

Download full-text


Available from: Lisa R Bulkow, Feb 25, 2015
1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Alere™ i Influenza A&B assay is a newly developed rapid molecular assay which has the potential to generate results within 15 minutes from sample collection. In this study we evaluated the Alere™ i Influenza A&B assay using salvaged frozen respiratory specimens that were collected in viral transport media from children ages 10 months to 19 years. Alere™ i Influenza A&B assay test results were compared with viral culture and ProFlu+ real-time RT-PCR assay. We found overall sensitivity and specificity of the Alere™ i Influenza A&B assay was 93.3% and 94.5% for the detection of influenza A, and 100% and 100% for the detection of influenza B, respectively when compared to viral culture. In comparison to ProFlu+ real-time RT-PCR, overall sensitivity and specificity of the Alere™ i Influenza A&B assay for the detection of influenza A was 88.8% and 98.3% and 100% and 100% for detecting influenza B, respectively. Overall, the Alere™ i Influenza A&B assay performed well when compared to both viral cell culture and RT-PCR.
    Journal of Clinical Microbiology 09/2014; 58(11). DOI:10.1128/JCM.01639-14 · 4.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Due to the insensitivity of rapid tests for respiratory viruses, nucleic acid amplification tests are quickly becoming the standard of care. Objectives and study design: The performance of the FilmArray Respiratory Panel (RP) and Verigene RV+ (RV + ) were compared in a retrospective analysis of 89 clinical specimens previously determined to be positive for the following viruses by our test of record, Prodesse (Pro): influenza A (29, FluA), influenza B (13, FluB), respiratory syncytial virus (12, RSV), human metapneumovirus (10, hMPV), parainfluenza (14, PIV), and adenovirus (10, AdV). Samples positive for influenza A, B or RSV were tested by both methods, while the remainder were tested by RP only. True positives were defined as positive by two or more assays. Results Limit of detection (LOD) analyses demonstrated Pro had the lowest LOD for all FluA strains tested, PIV1, PIV2 and AdV; RV+ had the lowest LOD for FluB; and RP had the lowest LOD for RSV, PIV3 and hMPV. Of the 55 samples tested by RV+, all 54 true positive samples were positive by RV+. Of the 89 samples tested by RP, 85 of the 88 true positive samples were positive by RP. From these results, the overall sensitivities for influenza A, B and RSV were 100% and 98% for RV+ and RP, respectively. The overall sensitivity of RP for all viruses was 97%. Conclusions In summary, these systems demonstrated excellent performance. Furthermore, each system has benefits which will ensure they will all have a niche in a clinical laboratory.
    Journal of Clinical Virology 11/2014; 61(3). DOI:10.1016/j.jcv.2014.08.010 · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the novel two-photon excitation based mariPOC© Assay (ArcDia Laboratories) for antigen detection of respiratory viruses versus real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). METHODS: The mariPOC Assay and two multiplex real-time PCR techniques were performed on nasopharyngeal samples from pediatric patients with suspicion of acute respiratory infection admitted to a children’s hospital in Spain during Oct 2011-January 2013. RESULTS: A total of 233 samples were studied. Sensitivities and specificities (CI 95%) of the mariPOC Assay were for RSV, 78.4% (69.7-85.6) and 99.2% (96.3-100.0); IFV-A, 66.7% (26.2-94.0) and 99.6% (97.9-100.0); IFV-B, 63.6% (33.6-87.2) and 100.0% (98.7-100.0); hMPV, 60.0% (34.5-81.9) and 100.0% (98.6-100.0); ADV, 12.5% (0.6-48.0) and 100.0% (98.7-100.0), respectively. CONCLUSION: The mariPOC Assay is a highly specific method for simultaneous detection of eight respiratory viruses but has sensitivities that range from moderately high for RSV to moderate for IFV and hMPV, and low for ADV.
    Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease 06/2014; 79(2). DOI:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2014.02.005 · 2.57 Impact Factor