Open AccessComparison of three rapid influenza diagnostic tests with digital readout systems and one conventional rapid influenza diagnostic test
Author(s) -
Ryu Sook Won,
Suh In Bum,
Ryu SeMin,
Shin Kyu Sung,
Kim HyonSuk,
Kim Juwon,
Uh Young,
Yoon Kap Jun,
Lee JongHan
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of clinical laboratory analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.536
H-Index - 50
eISSN - 1098-2825
pISSN - 0887-8013
DOI - 10.1002/jcla.22234
Subject(s) - medicine , immunology , diagnostic test , virology , diagnostic accuracy , veterinary medicine
Background Rapid influenza diagnostic tests ( RIDT s) show variable sensitivities in clinical settings. We aimed to compare three digital RIDT s and one conventional RIDT . Methods We assessed 218 nasopharyngeal swabs from patients between neonates and 90 years old in 2016. Three digital RIDT s 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 RIDT s were tested with diluted solutions from the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control ( NIBSC ) to compare lower detection limit. Cross‐reactivity of four RIDT s 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 RIDT s 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 RIDT s according to specific, prevalent influenza subtypes.