Influenza A+B Test Kit Performance Study

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza A ◽  
Performance Study ◽  
Test Kit ◽  
B Test

scholarly journals Performance of BioFire array or QuickVue influenza A + B test versus a validation qPCR assay for detection of influenza A during a volunteer A/California/2009/H1N1 challenge study

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. McIlwain ◽  
Han Chen ◽  
Maria Apkarian ◽  
Melton Affrime ◽  
Bonnie Bock ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza A ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Influenza Viruses ◽  
Qpcr Assay ◽  
Superior Performance ◽  
Qrt Pcr ◽  
Challenge Study ◽  
Test Kit ◽  
2009 H1n1 ◽  
B Test

Abstract Background Influenza places a significant burden on global health and economics. Individual case management and public health efforts to mitigate the spread of influenza are both strongly impacted by our ability to accurately and efficiently detect influenza viruses in clinical samples. Therefore, it is important to understand the performance characteristics of available assays to detect influenza in a variety of settings. We provide the first report of relative performance between two products marketed to streamline detection of influenza virus in the context of a highly controlled volunteer influenza challenge study. Methods Nasopharyngeal swab samples were collected during a controlled A/California/2009/H1N1 influenza challenge study and analyzed for detection of virus shedding using a validated qRT-PCR (qPCR) assay, a sample-to-answer qRT-PCR device (BioMerieux BioFire FilmArray RP), and an immunoassay based rapid test kit (Quidel QuickVue Influenza A + B Test). Results Relative to qPCR, the sensitivity and specificity of the BioFire assay was 72.1% [63.7–79.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI)] and 93.5% (89.3–96.4%, 95% CI) respectively. For the QuickVue rapid test the sensitivity was 8.5% (4.8–13.7%, 95% CI) and specificity was 99.2% (95.6–100%, 95% CI). Conclusion Relative to qPCR, the BioFire assay had superior performance compared to rapid test in the context of a controlled influenza challenge study.

scholarly journals Performance of BioFire Array or QuickVue Influenza A+B Test versus a validation qPCR assay for detection of influenza A during a volunteer A/California/2009/H1N1 challenge study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. McIlwain ◽  
Han Chen ◽  
Maria Apkarian ◽  
Melton Affrime ◽  
Bonnie Bock ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza A ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Influenza Viruses ◽  
Qpcr Assay ◽  
Superior Performance ◽  
Qrt Pcr ◽  
Challenge Study ◽  
Test Kit ◽  
2009 H1n1 ◽  
B Test

Abstract Background: Influenza places a significant burden on global health and economics. Individual case management and public health efforts to mitigate the spread of influenza are both strongly impacted by our ability to accurately and efficiently detect influenza viruses in clinical samples. Therefore, it is important to understand the performance characteristics of available assays to detect influenza in a variety of settings. We provide the first report of relative performance between two products marketed to streamline detection of influenza virus in the context of a highly controlled volunteer influenza challenge study. Methods: Nasopharyngeal swab samples were collected during a controlled A/California/2009/H1N1 influenza challenge study and analyzed using for detection of virus shedding using a validated qRT-PCR (qPCR) assay, a sample-to-answer qRT-PCR device (BioMerieux BioFire FilmArray RP), and an immunoassay based rapid test kit (Quidel QuickVue Influenza A+B Test).Results: Relative to qPCR, the sensitivity and specificity of the BioFire assay was 72.1% (63.7%-79.5%, 95% Confidence Interval (CI)) and 93.5% (89.3%-96.4%, 95% CI) respectively. For the QuickVue rapid test the sensitivity was 8.5% (4.8%-13.7%, 95% CI) and specificity was 99.2% (95.6%-100%, 95% CI).Conclusion: Relative to qPCR, the BioFire assay had superior performance compared to rapid test in the context of a controlled influenza challenge study.

scholarly journals Correction to: Performance of BioFire array or QuickVue influenza A + B test versus a validation qPCR assay for detection of influenza A during a volunteer A/California/2009/H1N1 challenge study

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. McIlwain ◽  
Han Chen ◽  
Maria Apkarian ◽  
Melton Affrime ◽  
Bonnie Bock ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza A ◽  
Qpcr Assay ◽  
Challenge Study ◽  
2009 H1n1 ◽  
B Test

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

scholarly journals Performance of the Molecular Alere i Influenza A&B Test Compared to That of the Xpert Flu A/B Assay

2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 706-709 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberle C. Chapin ◽  
Estefany J. Flores-Cortez
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Virus ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Influenza A ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Type A ◽  
Influenza B ◽  
Clinical Sensitivity ◽  
Transport Medium ◽  
The Poor ◽  
B Test

Data on the performance of rapid molecular point-of-care use platforms for diagnosis of influenza are lacking. We validated nasopharyngeal (NP) flocked specimens in universal transport medium (UTM) and evaluated the clinical sensitivity and specificity of the Alere i influenza A&B test compared to those of the Xpert flu A/B assay. The Alere i influenza A&B test had an overall sensitivity and specificity of 93.8% and 62.5% for influenza A, respectively, and of 91.8% and 53.6% for influenza B, respectively. The poor specificity was due to influenza virus samples determined positive for both type A and B.

Clinical performance of the 3M Rapid Detection Flu A+B Test compared to R-Mix culture, DFA and BinaxNOW Influenza A&B Test

2009 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine C. Ginocchio ◽  
Madhavi Lotlikar ◽  
Leon Falk ◽  
Suman Arora ◽  
Margaret Kowerska ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rapid Detection ◽  
Influenza A ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
B Test

scholarly journals Comparative Sensitivity of Rapid Antigen Tests for the Delta Variant (B.1.617.2) of SARS-CoV-2

Viruses ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 2183
Author(s):  
Yuko Sakai-Tagawa ◽  
Seiya Yamayoshi ◽  
Peter J. Halfmann ◽  
Yoshihiro Kawaoka
Keyword(s):  
Rapid Detection ◽  
Influenza A ◽  
Infectious Virus ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Rapid Diagnosis ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Detection Level ◽  
Test Kit ◽  
Low Levels ◽  
Antigen Tests

Rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19 based on lateral flow immunoassays are useful for rapid diagnosis in a variety of settings. Although many kinds of RATs are available, their respective sensitivity has not been compared. Here, we examined the sensitivity of 27 RATs available in Japan for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant. All of the RATs tested detected the delta variant albeit with different sensitivities. Nine RATs (ESPLINE SARS-CoV-2, ALSONIC COVID-19 Ag, COVID-19 and Influenza A+B Antigen Combo Rapid Test, ImmunoArrow SARS-CoV-2, Fuji Dri-chem immuno AG cartridge COVID-19 Ag, 2019-nCoV Ag rapid detection kit, Saliva SARS-CoV-2(2019-nCoV) Antigen Test Kit, and Rabliss SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection kit COVID19 AG) showed superior sensitivity to the isolated delta variant. Although actual clinical specimens were not examined, the detection level of most of the RATs was 7500 pfu, indicating that individuals whose test samples contained less virus than that would be considered negative. Therefore, it is important to bear in mind that RATs may miss individuals shedding low levels of infectious virus.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document