Background: The diagnosis of influenza infection is primarily clinical especially during epidemics. However, in a hospital setting, rapid diagnosis and biological confirmation are often necessary to allow optimal control of the infection and prevent nosocomial influenza. In this context, antigen detection tests, despite their low sensitivity, are interesting because of their ease of use and rapid ... [Show full abstract] result. We report a feedback on the use of the BD Veritor™ System Flu A + B (BD Diagnostics) tests during the winter season 2014–2015. Methods: The BD Veritor™ System Flu A + B tests was prospectively evaluated in the daily practice of the virology laboratory of the University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand, France. Results were subsequently confirmed by real- time RT-PCR, which is currently the gold standard (in-house method according to the national reference center of influenza viruses, Pasteur Institute, Paris, France or FilmArray®, bioMérieux). Results: Two hundred and thirty five tests were performed (57 children under 14 years of age of whom 52 were ≤5 years; 68 patients aged 15 to 64 years and 110 patients aged ≥65 years), mainly on nasal swabs (n = 211) and on nasopharyngeal aspirates (n = 24). Sixty-two cases of influenza A and 18 influenza B infections were diagnosed by RT-PCR. Compared to RT-PCR, the sensitivities and specificities of this test were, respectively, 58.1% and 98% for influenza A, and 33.3% and 97% for influenza B. False-positive results were observed among uninfected patients (1.8% influenza A and 2.8% influenza B) and in all but one sample were not reproducible. Sensitivity was significantly higher in patients aged 0–14 years for influenza A (81.3%). No case of influenza B was identified in this age group. Sensitivity was correlated with the viral load as estimated by the cycle threshold (Ct): it reached 100% when the Ct was ≤19.99 for influenza A and ≤24.99 for influenza B. Conclusions: During the 2014–2015 flu epidemic, the BD Veritor™ System Flu A + B tests allowed early detection of infected patients especially in the paediatric population and/or patients with significant viral loads. From a laboratory practice point of view, the test allowed rapid screening of influenza positive samples and a reduction in the number of time-consuming RT-PCR tests. However, a negative result had to be confirmed by RT-PCR, particularly in patients with severe respiratory symptoms and/or comorbidity factors.