In:
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, Wiley, Vol. 32, No. 2 ( 2018-02)
Abstract:
Rapid influenza diagnostic tests ( RIDT s) show variable sensitivities in clinical settings. We aimed to compare three digital RIDT s and one conventional RIDT . Methods We assessed 218 nasopharyngeal swabs from patients between neonates and 90 years old in 2016. Three digital RIDT s were BUDDI , Sofia Influenza A+B Fluorescence Immunoassay, Veritor System Flu A+B assay. One conventional test was the SD Bioline Influenza Ag A/B/A(H1N1/2009). All test results were compared with those from the Anyplex Flu A/B Typing Real‐time Detection real‐time PCR . The four RIDT s were tested with diluted solutions from the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control ( NIBSC ) to compare lower detection limit. Cross‐reactivity of four RIDT s within other respiratory viruses was identified. Results For influenza A, BUDDI , Sofia, Veritor, and Bioline showed 87.7%, 94.5%, 87.7%, and 72.6% sensitivity, and 100%, 97.7%, 96.5%, and 100% specificity. For influenza B, BUDDI , Sofia, Veritor, and Bioline showed 81.7%, 91.7%, 81.7%, and 78.3% sensitivity, and 100%, 95.3%, 100%, and 100% specificity, respectively. Each RIDT could detect diluted NIBSC solution, according to the level of dilution and specific influenza subtypes. Cross‐reactivity of four RIDT s with other respiratory viruses was not noted. Conclusions Sofia showed the highest sensitivity for influenza A and B detection. BUDDI and Veritor showed higher detection sensitivity than a conventional RIDT for influenza A detection, but similar results for influenza B detection. Further study is needed to compare the test performance of RIDT s according to specific, prevalent influenza subtypes.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0887-8013
,
1098-2825
DOI:
10.1002/jcla.2018.32.issue-2
Language:
English
Publisher:
Wiley
Publication Date:
2018
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2001635-9
Bookmarklink