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

2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dithi Banerjee ◽  
Neena Kanwar ◽  
Ferdaus Hassan ◽  
Cynthia Essmyer ◽  
Rangaraj Selvarangan
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Syncytial Virus ◽  
Nucleic Acid ◽  
Influenza A ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Influenza B Virus ◽  
Influenza B ◽  
Reverse Transcription Pcr ◽  
B Virus ◽  
Control And Prevention ◽  
Syncytial Virus

ABSTRACT 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.

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.

scholarly journals Detection of Influenza A and B Viruses and Respiratory Syncytial Virus by Use of Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA)-Waived Point-of-Care Assays: a Paradigm Shift to Molecular Tests

2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marwan M. Azar ◽  
Marie L. Landry
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Syncytial Virus ◽  
Antiviral Therapy ◽  
Influenza A ◽  
Clinical Laboratory ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Molecular Tests ◽  
Syncytial Virus ◽  
Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments

ABSTRACT An accurate laboratory diagnosis of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and other respiratory viruses can help to guide patient management, antiviral therapy, infection prevention strategies, and epidemiologic monitoring. Influenza has been the primary driver of rapid laboratory testing due to its morbidity and mortality across all ages, the availability of antiviral therapy, which must be given early to have an effect, and the constant threat of new pandemic strains. Over the past 30 years, there has been an evolution in viral diagnostic testing, from viral culture to rapid antigen detection, and more recently, to highly sensitive nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT), as well as a trend to testing at the point of care (POC). Simple rapid antigen immunoassays have long been the mainstay for POC testing for influenza A and B viruses and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) but have been faulted for low sensitivity. In 2015, the first POC NAAT for the detection of influenza was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), ushering in a new era. In 2017, the FDA reclassified rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) from class I to class II devices with new minimum performance standards and a requirement for annual reactivity testing. Consequently, many previously available RIDTs can no longer be purchased in the United States. In this review, recent developments in Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA)-waived testing for respiratory virus infections will be presented, with the focus on currently available FDA-cleared rapid antigen and molecular tests primarily for influenza A and B viruses and RSV.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document