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
Journal of clinical laboratory analysis
2017Apr ; 5 ( 15 ) :.
ÀúÀÚ »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
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 -
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. CI - ??2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
digital readout system; influenza; rapid influenza diagnostic test; sensitivity; specificity
¸µÅ©

ÁÖÁ¦ÄÚµå
ÁÖÁ¦¸í(Target field)
¿¬±¸´ë»ó(Population)
¿¬±¸Âü¿©(Sample size)
´ë»ó¼ºº°(Gender)
Áúº´Æ¯¼º(Condition Category)
¿¬±¸È¯°æ(Setting)
¿¬±¸¼³°è(Study Design)
¿¬±¸±â°£(Period)
ÁßÀç¹æ¹ý(Intervention Type)
ÁßÀç¸íĪ(Intervention Name)
Å°¿öµå(Keyword)
À¯È¿¼º°á°ú(Recomendation)
RIDTs with digital readout systems showed higher detection sensitivity than a conventional rapid test.
¿¬±¸ºñÁö¿ø(Fund Source)
±Ù°Å¼öÁØÆò°¡(Evidence Hierarchy)
ÃâÆdz⵵(Year)
Âü¿©ÀúÀÚ¼ö(Authors)
´ëÇ¥ÀúÀÚ
DOI
10.1002/jcla.22234
KCDÄÚµå
ICD 03
°Ç°­º¸ÇèÄÚµå