Comparison of three rapid influenza diagnostic tests with digital readout systems and one conventional rapid influenza diagnostic test

Sook Won Ryu, In Bum Suh, Se Min Ryu, Kyu Sung Shin, Hyon Suk Kim, Juwon Kim, Young Uh, Kap Jun Yoon, Jong Han Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish
Article numbere22234
JournalJournal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis
Volume32
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018 Feb 1

Fingerprint

Readout systems
Viruses
Routine Diagnostic Tests
Human Influenza
Dilution
Assays
Fluorescence

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

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. / Comparison of three rapid influenza diagnostic tests with digital readout systems and one conventional rapid influenza diagnostic test. In: Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis. 2018 ; Vol. 32, No. 2.
@article{55a59b8e8ed348cc8f4efde3e1da43a5,
title = "Comparison of three rapid influenza diagnostic tests with digital readout systems and one conventional rapid influenza diagnostic test",
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.",
author = "Ryu, {Sook Won} and Suh, {In Bum} and Ryu, {Se Min} and Shin, {Kyu Sung} and Kim, {Hyon Suk} and Juwon Kim and Young Uh and Yoon, {Kap Jun} and Lee, {Jong Han}",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/jcla.22234",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis",
issn = "0887-8013",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "2",

}

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 journalArticle

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 -