scholarly journals Evaluation of the Xpert Flu A Panel nucleic acid amplification-based point-of-care test for influenza A virus detection and pandemic H1 subtyping

2010 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shireen L. Jenny ◽  
Yaobi Hu ◽  
Pieter Overduin ◽  
Adam Meijer
Keyword(s):  
Nucleic Acid ◽  
Influenza A Virus ◽  
Influenza A ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Virus Detection ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Point Of Care Test

scholarly journals Comparison of the ID Now Influenza A & B 2, Cobas Influenza A/B, and Xpert Xpress Flu Point-of-Care Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for Influenza A/B Virus Detection in Children

2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Neena Kanwar ◽  
Jeffrey Michael ◽  
Kathryn Doran ◽  
Emily Montgomery ◽  
Rangaraj Selvarangan
Keyword(s):  
Nucleic Acid ◽  
Influenza A ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Virus Detection ◽  
Reference Method ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Molecular Assays ◽  
B Virus ◽  
Flu Virus ◽  
Xpert Assay

ABSTRACT Early diagnosis of influenza (Flu) is critical for patient management and infection control. The ID Now influenza A & B 2 (ID Now) assay (Abbott Laboratories), Cobas influenza A/B nucleic acid test (LIAT; Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.), and Xpert Xpress Flu (Xpert; Cepheid) are rapid, point-of-care molecular assays for Flu virus detection. The study aim was to compare the performances of these three commercially available Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-waived Flu virus assays. We prospectively enrolled 201 children <18 years old from January to April 2018 and collected nasopharyngeal swab specimens in viral medium. Aliquots were frozen for testing on different diagnostic platforms, as per the manufacturers’ instructions. CDC Flu A/B PCR was used as a reference method to evaluate the performances of these three platforms. Among the 201 specimens tested, the CDC Flu A/B PCR assay detected Flu A/B virus in 107 samples (Flu A virus, 73 samples; Flu B virus, 36 samples; dual Flu A/B virus positive, 2 samples), while the ID Now virus detected 102 samples (Flu A virus, 69 samples; Flu B virus, 37 samples; dual Flu A/B virus positive, 4 samples; invalid rate, 1/201 [0.5%]), the LIAT detected 112 samples (Flu A virus, 74 samples; Flu B virus, 38 samples; invalid rate, 11/201 [5.5%]), and the Xpert assay detected 112 samples (Flu A virus, 76 samples; Flu B virus, 36 samples; invalid rate, 6/201 [3.0%]). The overall sensitivities for the ID Now assay, LIAT, and Xpert assay for Flu A virus detection (93.2%, 100%, and 100%, respectively) and Flu B virus detection (97.2%, 94.4%, and 91.7%, respectively) were comparable. The specificity for Flu A and B virus detection by all methods was >97%. These molecular assays had higher sensitivity than did a historical standard-of-care test from the BD Veritor antigen test (Flu A virus, 79.5%; Flu B virus, 66.7%).

scholarly journals Nucleic Acid-Based Sensing Techniques for Diagnostics and Surveillance of Influenza

Biosensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha J. Courtney ◽  
Zachary R. Stromberg ◽  
Jessica Z. Kubicek-Sutherland
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Virus ◽  
Nucleic Acid ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Influenza A ◽  
Direct Detection ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Influenza Viruses ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
High Genetic Diversity ◽  
Mild Disease

Influenza virus poses a threat to global health by causing seasonal outbreaks as well as three pandemics in the 20th century. In humans, disease is primarily caused by influenza A and B viruses, while influenza C virus causes mild disease mostly in children. Influenza D is an emerging virus found in cattle and pigs. To mitigate the morbidity and mortality associated with influenza, rapid and accurate diagnostic tests need to be deployed. However, the high genetic diversity displayed by influenza viruses presents a challenge to the development of a robust diagnostic test. Nucleic acid-based tests are more accurate than rapid antigen tests for influenza and are therefore better candidates to be used in both diagnostic and surveillance applications. Here, we review various nucleic acid-based techniques that have been applied towards the detection of influenza viruses in order to evaluate their utility as both diagnostic and surveillance tools. We discuss both traditional as well as novel methods to detect influenza viruses by covering techniques that require nucleic acid amplification or direct detection of viral RNA as well as comparing advantages and limitations for each method. There has been substantial progress in the development of nucleic acid-based sensing techniques for the detection of influenza virus. However, there is still an urgent need for a rapid and reliable influenza diagnostic test that can be used at point-of-care in order to enhance responsiveness to both seasonal and pandemic influenza outbreaks.

scholarly journals Direct Comparison of Alere i and cobas Liat Influenza A and B Tests for Rapid Detection of Influenza Virus Infection

2016 ◽  
Vol 54 (11) ◽  
pp. 2763-2766 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick S. Nolte ◽  
Lori Gauld ◽  
Susan B. Barrett
Keyword(s):  
Influenza A Virus ◽  
Influenza A ◽  
Limit Of Detection ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Influenza Virus Infection ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Influenza B Virus ◽  
Influenza B ◽  
Viral Transport Medium ◽  
B Virus

We compared two rapid, point-of care nucleic acid amplification tests for detection of influenza A and B viruses (Alere i [Alere] and cobas Liat [Roche Diagnostics]) with the influenza A and B virus test components of the FilmArray respiratory panel (BioFire Diagnostics) using 129 respiratory specimens collected in universal viral transport medium (80 influenza A virus and 16 influenza B virus positive) from both adult and pediatric patients. The sensitivities of the Alere test were 71.3% for influenza A virus and 93.3% for influenza B virus, with specificities of 100% for both viruses. The sensitivities and specificities of the Liat test were 100% for both influenza A and B viruses. The poor sensitivity of the Alere test for detection of influenza A virus was likely due to a study set that included many low-positive samples that were below its limit of detection.

scholarly journals Evaluation of a Field-Deployable Insulated Isothermal Polymerase Chain Reaction Nucleic Acid Analyzer for Influenza A Virus Detection at Swine Exhibitions

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 212-216
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Lauterbach ◽  
Sarah N. Nelson ◽  
Jacqueline M. Nolting ◽  
Jessie D. Trujillo ◽  
Jürgen A. Richt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Nucleic Acid ◽  
Influenza A Virus ◽  
Influenza A ◽  
Virus Detection ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Polymerase Chain

scholarly journals Toward a CRISPR-based point-of-care test for tomato brown rugose fruit virus detection

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joan Miquel Bernabé-Orts ◽  
Yolanda Hernando ◽  
Miguel A. Aranda
Keyword(s):  
Nucleic Acid ◽  
Plant Pathogens ◽  
Limit Of Detection ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Genetic Resistance ◽  
Virus Detection ◽  
Cross Reactivity ◽  
World Population ◽  
Acid Extraction ◽  
Point Of Care Test

Implementing effective monitoring strategies is fundamental to protect crops from pathogens and to ensure the food supply as the world population continues to grow. This is especially important for emergent plant pathogens such as tomato brown rugose fruit virus (ToBRFV), which overcomes the genetic resistance resources used in tomato breeding against tobamoviruses and has become pandemic in less than a decade. Here we report the development of a CRISPR/Cas12a-based test to detect ToBRFV in the laboratory and potentially in a field setting. Using different tobamoviruses to assess specificity, our test showed a clear positive signal for ToBRFV-infected samples, while no cross-reactivity was observed for closely related viruses. Next, we compared the limit of detection of our CRISPR-based test with a reference real-time quantitative PCR test widely used, revealing similar sensitivities for both tests. Finally, to reduce complexity and achieve field-applicability, we used a fast nucleic acid purification step and compared its results side-to-side with those of a commonly used column-mediated protocol. The rapid protocol saved time and resources but at the expense of sensitivity. However, it still may be useful to confirm ToBRFV detection in samples with incipient symptoms of infection. Although there is room for improvement, to our knowledge this is the first field-compatible CRISPR-based test to detect ToBRFV which combines isothermal amplification with a simplified nucleic acid extraction protocol.

scholarly journals Understanding Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques in the Detection of Influenza viruses in Developing Countries

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdulazeez A. Anjorin ◽  
Olumuyiwa B. Salu ◽  
Robert K. Obi ◽  
Bamidele O. Oke ◽  
Akeeb O. Oyefolu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Influenza Virus ◽  
Nucleic Acid ◽  
Influenza A ◽  
Virus Detection ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques ◽  
Influenza Virus Detection ◽  
Polymerase Chain

Introduction: Early detection of emerging influenza virus variant is a key factor in the WHO influenza Global strategies for prevention and control. Rapid, accurate, inexpensive and portable detection systems are needed for influenza virus diagnosis and surveillance. Such a detection system should easily identify all the subtypes of influenza virus. Degenerate primers and probes designed from evolutionally conserved regions for known influenza A viruses present the best way to identify unknown subtypes of influenza A virus by polymerase chain reaction PCR and array techniques. The isothermal reactions, Nucleic Acid Sequencing Based Amplification (NASBA) and Loop-mediated isothermal Amplification (LAMP) possess great potential for influenza A virus detection especially in developing countries. However, multiplex real-time (rT) or quantitative (q) polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) remains a rapid, accurate and timesaving technique used for influenza virus detection. Aim: This manuscript explained the principles of nucleic acid amplification techniques commonly used in developing countries. Methods: Literature search was done in NCBI PUBMED, PUBMED Central and Google Scholar using words and phrases including “Influenzamolecular diagnosis, NAAT”, Molecular techniques/ methods, PCR, qPCR, NASBA, LAMP, and DNA microarray. Results: The underlining principles and basic processes involved in the application of nucleic acid amplification techniques for the detection and epidemiological surveillance of influenza virus were identified and grouped under PCR (RT-PCR and qRT-PCR) and Non-PCR (LCR, pyrosequencing, NASBA, LAMP and DNA microarray) amplifications. Conclusion: It is hoped that by understanding the techniques and basic principles of Nucleic acid amplifications, less expensive, and more convenient protocols for influenza virus detection and surveillance can be developed Keywords: Influenza, NAAT, Molecular, PCR, qPCR, Viral diagnosis.

Diagnostic tests for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in rectal and pharyngeal specimens

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul C. Adamson ◽  
Jeffrey D. Klausner
Keyword(s):  
Chlamydia Trachomatis ◽  
Neisseria Gonorrhoeae ◽  
Bacterial Infections ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Population Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Point Of Care Test ◽  
Control And Prevention

Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are two of the most often reported bacterial infections in the United States. The rectum and oropharynx are important anatomic sites of infection and can contribute to ongoing transmission. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are the mainstays for the detection of C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae infections owing to their high sensitivity and specificity. Several NAATs have been evaluated for testing in rectal and pharyngeal infections. A few assays recently received clearance by the Food and Drug Administration, including one point-of-care test. Those assays can be used for testing in symptomatic individuals, as well as for asymptomatic screening in certain patient populations. Routine screening for C. trachomatis in pharyngeal specimens is not recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, though is often performed due to the use of multiplex assays. While expanding the types of settings for screening and using self-collected rectal and pharyngeal specimens can help to increase access and uptake of testing, additional research is needed to determine the potential benefits and costs associated with increased screening for rectal and pharyngeal C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae infections on a population level.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document