Comparison of Becton Dickinson Directigen EZ Flu A+B test against the CDC real-time PCR assay for detection of 2009 pandemic influenza A/H1N1 virus

Comparative analysis of Four sample-to-answer influenza A/B and RSV nucleic acid amplification assays using adult respiratory specimens

BACKGROUND

The use of Sample-to-answer (STA) platforms for the detection of influenza A/B and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) have greatly improved patient care. These diagnostic assays based on nucleic acid amplification are rapid, accurate and relatively easy to perform.

OBJECTIVES

We compared four such platforms for detecting FluA, FluB, and RSV from adult respiratory specimens: Hologic Panther Fusion® Flu A/B/RSV (Fusion), Cobas® Influenza A/B & RSV (Liat), Luminex Aries® Flu A/B & RSV (Aries), and Diasorin SimplexaTM Flu A/B & RSV (Simplexa).

STUDY DESIGN

Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs (n = 224) from adults were tested on these platforms and results were compared to Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommended real-time RT-PCR assay for influenza A/B and RSV. Subtyping for FluA and FluB was performed for discrepant analysis where applicable.

RESULTS

Of the 82 FluA, 26 FluB, 15 RSV-positive specimens tested, the positive and negative percentage agreements (PPA and NPA respectively) for FluA detection were 100/100 (Fusion), 95.1/100 (Liat), 92.5/100 (Aries), and 84.1/99.3 (Simplexa); PPA and NPA for FluB detection were 92.3/99.5 (Fusion), 96/99.5 (Liat), 100/99.5 (Aries), and 80.8/100 (Simplexa); and for RSV detection were 100/100 (Fusion), 100/100 (Liat), 88.6/99.5 (Aries), and 73.3/100 (Simplexa). 82 confirmed FluA included 23 pH1N1 and 57 H3N2 strains with 2 strains remaining untyped. Of the 26 confirmed FluB, 25 were of the Yamagata lineage and 1 of unknown lineage.

CONCLUSION

Only 2 STA platforms demonstrated >95% PPA for the detection of all three targets while all the 4 platforms demonstrated >95% NPA for FluA, FluB and RSV.

Comparison of Six Sample-to-Answer Influenza A/B and Respiratory Syncytial Virus Nucleic Acid Amplification Assays Using Respiratory Specimens from Children

The rapid and accurate detection of influenza A virus (FluA), influenza B virus (FluB), and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) improves patient care. Sample-to-answer (STA) platforms based on nucleic acid amplification and detection of these viruses are simple, automated, and accurate. We compared six such platforms for the detection of FluA, FluB, and RSV: Cepheid GeneXpert Xpress Flu/RSV (Xpert), Hologic Panther Fusion Flu A/B/RSV (Fusion), Cobas influenza A/B & RSV (Liat), Luminex Aries Flu A/B & RSV (Aries), BioFire FilmArray respiratory panel (RP), and Diasorin Simplexa Flu A/B & RSV (Simplexa). Nasopharyngeal (NP) swab specimens (n = 225) from children previously tested by RP were assessed on these platforms. The results were compared to those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-developed real-time reverse transcription-PCR (rRT-PCR) assay for influenza A/B viruses and RSV. Subtyping for FluA and FluB was performed for discrepant analysis where applicable. The percent sensitivities/specificities for FluA detection were 100/100 (Fusion), 98.6/99.3 (Xpert), 100/100 (Liat), 98.6/100 (Aries), 98.6/100 (Simplexa), and 100/100 (RP). The percent sensitivities/specificities for FluB detection were 100/100 (Fusion), 97.9/99.4 (Xpert), 97.9/98.3 (Liat), 93.7/99.4 (Aries), 85.4/99.4 (Simplexa), and 95.8/97.7 (RP); and those for RSV detection were 98.1/99.4 (Xpert), 98.1/99.4 (Liat), 96.3/100 (Fusion), 94.4/100 (Aries), 87/94.4 (Simplexa), and 94.4/100 (RP). The 75 strains confirmed to be FluA included 29 pH1N1, 39 H3N2, 4 sH1N1, and 3 untyped strains. The 48 strains confirmed to be FluB included 33 strains of the Yamagata lineage, 13 of the Victoria lineage, 1 of both the Yamagata and Victoria lineages, and 1 of an unknown lineage. All six STA platforms demonstrated >95% sensitivity for FluA detection, while three platforms (Fusion, Xpert, and Liat) demonstrated >95% sensitivity for FluB and RSV detection.

Primary A (H1N1) pdm09 Influenza Pneumonia Diagnosed on Reverse Transcription-polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) of Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid but not Rapid Tests with Nasopharyngeal Swabs

A 47-year-old man with a fever was highly suspected of having influenza A infection since his wife and son who lived with him had been diagnosed with influenza A. Although repeated rapid tests with a nasopharyngeal swab showed negative findings, the patient developed bilateral pneumonia and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for A (H1N1) pdm09 virus in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid was positive. We therefore diagnosed him with primary influenza pneumonia and initiated treatment with peramivir plus corticosteroids, which rapidly improved his condition. During the influenza season, sample collection from the lower airway and PCR should be considered for the definitive diagnosis of primary influenza viral pneumonia.

Development of a Specific and Rapid Diagnostic Method for Detecting Influenza A (H1N1) pdm09 Virus Infection Using Immunochromatographic Assay

Objectives

The aim of this study was to develop an immunochromatographic assay (ICA) for the detection of influenza A (H1N1) pdm09 virus infection.

Materials and methods

Several monoclonal antibodies against influenza A (H1N1) pdm09 virus were generated and an ICA (pdm09-ICA) was developed for the rapid and specific detection of influenza A (H1N1) pdm09 virus infection. The specificity and sensitivity of the developed assay were compared with that of hemagglutination assay and real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR).

Results

The detection limit was estimated to be 1/2 (8) hemagglutinating unit; the sensitivity and specificity rates of pdm09-ICA were 75.86% (110/145) and 100% (43/43), respectively, compared with rRT-PCR. The cross-reactivity for 20 influenza viruses, including seasonal H1N1 viruses, was found to be negative except for the H1N1 virus (A/Swine/Korea/GC0503/2005).

Conclusion

These results indicate that the proposed method can be easily used for rapid and specific detection of the pdm09 infection. The assay developed in this study would be a useful tool for distinguishing the pdm09 infection from seasonal influenza A and B infections.

Accuracy of rapid influenza detection test in diagnosis of influenza A and B viruses in children less than 59 months old

Influenza burden among children is underestimated. Rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) may be helpful in the early diagnosis of the disease, but their results should be interpreted cautiously. The aim of our study was to estimate the accuracy of the rapid influenza detection test BD Directigen™ EZ Flu A+B (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Sparks, MD) used among children with influenza-like illness (ILI) consulted in the ambulatory care clinics. A total number of 150 patients were enrolled into the study. The inclusion criteria were: age of the child less than 59 months, presentation of ILI according to CDC definition (fever >37.8 °C, cough, and/or sore throat in the absence of another known cause of illness), and duration of symptoms shorter than 96 h. In all patients two nasal and one pharyngeal swab were obtained and tested by RIDT, RT-PCR, and real time RT-PCR. For or influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, virus sensitivity of RIDT was 62.2 % (95 %CI 53.4-66.5 %), specificity 97.1 % (95 %CI 93.4-99 %), positive predictive value (PPV) 90.3 % (95 %CI 77.5-96.5 %), and negative predictive value (NPV) 85.7 % (95 %CI 82.4-87.3 %). For influenza B, virus sensitivity was 36.8 % (95 %CI 23.3-41.1 %), specificity 99.2 % (95 %CI 97.3-99.9 %), PPV 87.5 % (95 %CI 55.4-97.7 %), and NPV 91.5 % (95 % CI 89.7-92.1 %). We conclude that the RIDT immunoassay is a specific, but moderately sensitive, method in the diagnosis of influenza type A and is of low sensitivity in the diagnosis of influenza B infections in infants and children.

Performance of the Directigen EZ Flu A+B rapid influenza diagnostic test to detect pandemic influenza A/H1N1 2009

The Directigen EZ Flu A+B rapid influenza diagnostic test, as compared to real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, demonstrated suboptimal performance to detect pandemic influenza A/H1N1 2009. Age- and viral load-stratified test sensitivity ranged from 33.3 to 84.6% and 0 to 100%, respectively.

Comparison of Xpert Flu rapid nucleic acid testing with rapid antigen testing for the diagnosis of influenza A and B

Influenza infections are associated with thousands of hospital admissions and deaths each year. Rapid detection of influenza is important for prompt initiation of antiviral therapy and appropriate patient triage. In this study the Cepheid Xpert Flu assay was compared with two rapid antigen tests, BinaxNOW Influenza A & B and BD Directigen EZ Flu A+B, as well as direct fluorescent antibody testing for the rapid detection of influenza A and B. Using real-time, hydrolysis probe-based, reverse transcriptase PCR as the reference method, influenza A sensitivity was 97.3% for Xpert Flu, 95.9% for direct fluorescent antibody testing, 62.2% for BinaxNOW, and 71.6% for BD Directigen. Influenza B sensitivity was 100% for Xpert Flu and direct fluorescent antibody testing, 54.5% for BinaxNOW, and 48.5% for BD Directigen. Specificity for influenza A was 100% for Xpert Flu, BinaxNOW, and BD Directigen, and 99.2% for direct fluorescent antibody testing. All methods demonstrated 100% specificity for influenza B. These findings support the use of the Xpert Flu assay in settings requiring urgent diagnosis of influenza A and B.

Performance of rapid influenza H1N1 diagnostic tests: a meta-analysis

Please cite this paper as: Chu et al. (2011) Performance of rapid influenza H1N1 diagnostic tests: a meta‐analysis. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses DOI: 10.1111/j.1750‐2659.2011.00284.x.

Background  Following the outbreaks of 2009 pandemic H1N1 infection, rapid influenza diagnostic tests have been used to detect H1N1 infection. However, no meta‐analysis has been undertaken to assess the diagnostic accuracy when this manuscript was drafted.

Methods  The literature was systematically searched to identify studies that reported the performance of rapid tests. Random effects meta‐analyses were conducted to summarize the overall performance.

Results  Seventeen studies were selected with 1879 cases and 3477 non‐cases. The overall sensitivity and specificity estimates of the rapid tests were 0·51 (95%CI: 0·41, 0·60) and 0·98 (95%CI: 0·94, 0·99). Studies reported heterogeneous sensitivity estimates, ranging from 0·11 to 0·88. If the prevalence was 30%, the overall positive and negative predictive values were 0·94 (95%CI: 0·85, 0·98) and 0·82 (95%CI: 0·79, 0·85). The overall specificities from different manufacturers were comparable, while there were some differences for the overall sensitivity estimates. BinaxNOW had a lower overall sensitivity of 0·39 (95%CI: 0·24, 0·57) compared with all the others (P‐value <0·001), whereas QuickVue had a higher overall sensitivity of 0·57 (95%CI: 0·50, 0·63) compared with all the others (P‐value = 0·005).

Conclusions  Rapid tests have high specificity but low sensitivity and thus limited usefulness.

Clinical performance of three rapid diagnostic tests for influenza virus in nasopharyngeal specimens to detect novel swine-origin influenza viruses

BACKGROUND

Influenza is an important public health problem. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the sensitivity and specificity of three rapid diagnostic tests (SEKISUI, QuickVue Influenza A + B, and SD BIOLINE) for novel swine-origin influenza viruses (S-OIV) and seasonal influenza.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 210 nasopharyngeal swabs from unique clinical specimens were previously tested by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay and tested again in this study.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Of these, 164 (78%) were influenza A-positive and 46 (22%) were influenza A-negative by RT-PCR. From 115 positive swabs, 80 (69.6%), 66 (57.4%), and 46 (40.0%) showed S-OIV by SEKISUI, QuickVue Influenza A + B, and SD BIOLINE, respectively. Specific positive and negative predictive values of these three commercial rapid tests were all 100%. Therefore, positive rapid influenza virus diagnosis does not require an RT-PCR confirmatory test. Conversely, only negative rapid influenza virus diagnosis should be evaluated. The SEKISUI test would be a useful diagnostic tool for screening clinical samples for influenza. Concerning the various specimen types, among 25 patients with RT-PCR-proven S-OIV infection, influenza was identified in sputum (21/25; 84.0%) and nasopharyngeal swab (15/25; 60.0%) specimens, but in only 36.0% (9/25) of throat swab specimens. Sputum and nasopharyngeal swab specimens were the most predictive of influenza virus infection, while throat swab specimens were the least predictive of influenza virus infection.

Comparison of a laboratory-developed RT-PCR and the CDC RT-PCR protocol with rapid immunodiagnostic testing during the 2009 H1N1 influenza A pandemic

We evaluated the performance of a laboratory-developed multiplex real-time reverse transcription-PCR assay (LDT rRT-PCR), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2009 H1N1 rRT-PCR protocol using the LightCycler 480 II, the multiplex xTAG Respiratory Virus Panel (xTAG RVP), and rapid immunodiagnostic testing (RIDT) using the BinaxNOW Influenza A & B to detect 2009 H1N1 with 426 nasopharyngeal swab specimens during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. The specificity of the methods tested was ≥98%, and the individual test sensitivities were RIDT at 42.3% [95% confidence interval (CI), 31.4–54.0], LDT rRT-PCR at 98.9% (95% CI, 92.9–99.9), CDC 2009 H1N1 rRT-PCR at 78.2% (95% CI, 67.8–86.0), and xTAG RVP at 93.1% (95% CI, 85.0–97.2). A negative RIDT result should not be used to make decisions with respect to treatment or infection prevention. rRT-PCR is the preferred first-line diagnostic test for detecting 2009 H1N1 influenza A.

rapidSTRIPE H1N1 test for detection of the pandemic swine origin influenza A (H1N1) virus

The rapidSTRIPE H1N1 test, based on a nucleic acid lateral-flow assay, has been developed for diagnosis of a swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus. This test is simple and cost-effective and allows specific detection of the S-OIV A (H1N1) virus from swab sampling to final detection on a lateral-flow stripe within 2 to 3 h.

Comparison of BinaxNOW Influenza A&B assay and real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction for diagnosis of influenza A pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus infection in adult patients

The BinaxNOW Influenza A&B assay was evaluated for the diagnosis of influenza A pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus infection in 354 adult patients. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 32%, 100%, 100%, and 67%, respectively. The analytic sensitivity of the assay was log₁₀5.0 tissue culture infective dose (TCID)₅₀/mL.