Comparison of Becton Dickinson Directigen EZ Flu A+B Test against the CDC Real-Time PCR Assay for Detection of 2009 Pandemic Influenza A/H1N1 Virus

Karre, Tess; Maguire, Hugh; Butcher, David B.; Graepler, Amy; Weed, Diane; Wilson, Michael L.

doi:10.1128/jcm.02063-09

Cited by 20 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…BinaxNOW demonstrated sensitivities from 11.1% to 60.3% and specificities from 93.6% to 100.0% when reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) assays were used as the reference method (CDC, 2009; Ginocchio et al, 2009; Vasoo et al, 2009; Fuenzalida et al, 2010; Liao et al, 2011). BD Directigen showed similar sensitivity and specificity for 2009 H1N1, 49.0–71.9% and 97.0–100.0%, respectively (Vasoo et al, 2009; Karre et al, 2010; Cheng et al, 2011). These rapid antigen tests exhibit comparable performance for the detection of influenza A (H3N2) and influenza B (Hurt et al, 2007; CDC, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Comparison of Xpert Flu rapid nucleic acid testing with rapid antigen testing for the diagnosis of influenza A and B

DiMaio

Sahoo

Waggoner

et al. 2012

Journal of Virological Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Influenza infections are associated with thousands of hospital admissions and deaths each year. Rapid detection of influenza is important for prompt initiation of antiviral therapy and appropriate patient triage. In this study the Cepheid Xpert Flu assay was compared with two rapid antigen tests, BinaxNOW Influenza A & B and BD Directigen EZ Flu A + B, as well as direct fluorescent antibody testing for the rapid detection of influenza A and B. Using real-time, hydrolysis probe-based, reverse transcriptase PCR as the reference method, influenza A sensitivity was 97.3% for Xpert Flu, 95.9% for direct fluorescent antibody testing, 62.2% for BinaxNOW, and 71.6% for BD Directigen. Influenza B sensitivity was 100% for Xpert Flu and direct fluorescent antibody testing, 54.5% for BinaxNOW, and 48.5% for BD Directigen. Specificity for influenza A was 100% for Xpert Flu, BinaxNOW, and BD Directigen, and 99.2% for direct fluorescent antibody testing. All methods demonstrated 100% specificity for influenza B. These findings support the use of the Xpert Flu assay in settings requiring urgent diagnosis of influenza A and B.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Comparison of Xpert Flu rapid nucleic acid testing with rapid antigen testing for the diagnosis of influenza A and B

DiMaio

Sahoo

Waggoner

et al. 2012

Journal of Virological Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While a variety of different diagnostic approaches have been projected, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) currently recommends that suspected clinical S-OIV infection be confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or viral culture. However, a recent number of studies have demonstrated the sensitivity and specificity of RT-PCR for the detection of influenza viruses, and influenza experts have recommended that RT-PCR be regarded as the new diagnostic standard [3,17,18,20,[23][24][25]29].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical performance of three rapid diagnostic tests for influenza virus in nasopharyngeal specimens to detect novel swine-origin influenza viruses

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Of these, 164 (78%) were influenza A-positive and 46 (22%) were influenza A-negative by RT-PCR. From 115 positive swabs, 80 (69.6%), 66 (57.4%), and 46 (40.0%) showed S-OIV by SEKISUI, QuickVue Influenza A + B, and SD BIOLINE, respectively. Specific positive and negative predictive values of these three commercial rapid tests were all 100%. Therefore, positive rapid influenza virus diagnosis does not require an RT-PCR confirmatory test. Conversely, only negative rapid influenza virus diagnosis should be evaluated. The SEKISUI test would be a useful diagnostic tool for screening clinical samples for influenza. Concerning the various specimen types, among 25 patients with RT-PCR-proven S-OIV infection, influenza was identified in sputum (21/25; 84.0%) and nasopharyngeal swab (15/25; 60.0%) specimens, but in only 36.0% (9/25) of throat swab specimens. Sputum and nasopharyngeal swab specimens were the most predictive of influenza virus infection, while throat swab specimens were the least predictive of influenza virus infection.

show abstract

“…Although nasopharyngeal aspirates or swabs collected early after the onset of symptoms provide suitable samples, endotracheal or bronchoscopic aspirates have higher yields in patients with lower respiratory tract illnesses (2,3). The sensitivity of rapid tests (immunofluorescent antigen assays) with nasopharyngeal swabs is low in cases of A (H1N1) pdm09 infection (2,4,5), and repeated collection of multiple respiratory specimens is recommended in the patients with a high clinical suspicion of H1N1 infection (1). We herein report the case of a 47-year-old man with primary A (H1N1) pdm09 influenza viral pneumonia diagnosed on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) of the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) but not rapid tests with nasopharyngeal swabs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primary A (H1N1) pdm09 Influenza Pneumonia Diagnosed on Reverse Transcription-polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) of Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid but not Rapid Tests with Nasopharyngeal Swabs

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A 47-year-old man with a fever was highly suspected of having influenza A infection since his wife and son who lived with him had been diagnosed with influenza A. Although repeated rapid tests with a nasopharyngeal swab showed negative findings, the patient developed bilateral pneumonia and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for A (H1N1) pdm09 virus in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid was positive. We therefore diagnosed him with primary influenza pneumonia and initiated treatment with peramivir plus corticosteroids, which rapidly improved his condition. During the influenza season, sample collection from the lower airway and PCR should be considered for the definitive diagnosis of primary influenza viral pneumonia.

show abstract

Comparison of Becton Dickinson Directigen EZ Flu A+B Test against the CDC Real-Time PCR Assay for Detection of 2009 Pandemic Influenza A/H1N1 Virus

Cited by 20 publications

References 4 publications

Comparison of Xpert Flu rapid nucleic acid testing with rapid antigen testing for the diagnosis of influenza A and B

Comparison of Xpert Flu rapid nucleic acid testing with rapid antigen testing for the diagnosis of influenza A and B

Clinical performance of three rapid diagnostic tests for influenza virus in nasopharyngeal specimens to detect novel swine-origin influenza viruses

Primary A (H1N1) pdm09 Influenza Pneumonia Diagnosed on Reverse Transcription-polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) of Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid but not Rapid Tests with Nasopharyngeal Swabs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About