Abstract
Background: Rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) show variable sensitivities in clinical settings. We aimed to compare three digital RIDTs and one conventional RIDT. Methods: We assessed 218 nasopharyngeal swabs from patients between neonates and 90 years old in 2016. Three digital RIDTs 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 RIDTs were tested with diluted solutions from the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) to compare lower detection limit. Cross-reactivity of four RIDTs 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 RIDTs 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 RIDTs according to specific, prevalent influenza subtypes.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | e22234 |
| Journal | Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2018 Feb 1 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Immunology and Allergy
- Hematology
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
- Clinical Biochemistry
- Medical Laboratory Technology
- Biochemistry, medical
- Microbiology (medical)
Cite this
}
Comparison of three rapid influenza diagnostic tests with digital readout systems and one conventional rapid influenza diagnostic test. / Ryu, Sook Won; Suh, In Bum; Ryu, Se Min; Shin, Kyu Sung; Kim, Hyon Suk; Kim, Juwon; Uh, Young; Yoon, Kap Jun; Lee, Jong Han.
In: Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, Vol. 32, No. 2, e22234, 01.02.2018.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of three rapid influenza diagnostic tests with digital readout systems and one conventional rapid influenza diagnostic test
AU - Ryu, Sook Won
AU - Suh, In Bum
AU - Ryu, Se Min
AU - Shin, Kyu Sung
AU - Kim, Hyon Suk
AU - Kim, Juwon
AU - Uh, Young
AU - Yoon, Kap Jun
AU - Lee, Jong Han
PY - 2018/2/1
Y1 - 2018/2/1
N2 - Background: Rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) show variable sensitivities in clinical settings. We aimed to compare three digital RIDTs and one conventional RIDT. Methods: We assessed 218 nasopharyngeal swabs from patients between neonates and 90 years old in 2016. Three digital RIDTs 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 RIDTs were tested with diluted solutions from the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) to compare lower detection limit. Cross-reactivity of four RIDTs 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 RIDTs 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 RIDTs according to specific, prevalent influenza subtypes.
AB - Background: Rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) show variable sensitivities in clinical settings. We aimed to compare three digital RIDTs and one conventional RIDT. Methods: We assessed 218 nasopharyngeal swabs from patients between neonates and 90 years old in 2016. Three digital RIDTs 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 RIDTs were tested with diluted solutions from the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) to compare lower detection limit. Cross-reactivity of four RIDTs 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 RIDTs 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 RIDTs according to specific, prevalent influenza subtypes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85018360067&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85018360067&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/jcla.22234
DO - 10.1002/jcla.22234
M3 - Article
C2 - 28407318
AN - SCOPUS:85018360067
VL - 32
JO - Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis
JF - Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis
SN - 0887-8013
IS - 2
M1 - e22234
ER -