Performance of rapid influenza diagnostic tests (QuickVue) for Influenza A and B Infection in India

Koul, Parvaiz A; Mir, Hyder; Bhat, Mashooq A.; Khan, UH; Khan, M. I.; Chadha, Neil K.; Lal, RB

doi:10.4103/0255-0857.148831

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of the included studies were performed in children, especially those evaluating rapid tests for RSV, which at least partly explains the lack of influence of age on the diagnostic accuracy estimates for RSV. For influenza, however, rapid test performance was significantly better in children, as reported elsewhere [24,25]. Age is inversely associated with viral load, which may explain better test results in children.…”

Section: Main Findings Of the Studysupporting

confidence: 75%

Rapid Tests for Influenza, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, and Other Respiratory Viruses: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Bruning

Leeflang²,

Vos

et al. 2017

Clinical Infectious Diseases

150

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid diagnosis of respiratory virus infections contributes to patient care. This systematic review evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of rapid tests for the detection of respiratory viruses. We searched Medline and EMBASE for studies evaluating these tests against polymerase chain reaction as the reference standard. Of 179 studies included, 134 evaluated rapid tests for influenza viruses, 32 for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and 13 for other respiratory viruses. We used the bivariate random effects model for quantitative meta-analysis of the results. Most tests detected only influenza viruses or RSV. Summary sensitivity and specificity estimates of tests for influenza were 61.1% and 98.9%. For RSV, summary sensitivity was 75.3%, and specificity, 98.7%. We assessed the quality of studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist. Because of incomplete reporting, the risk of bias was often unclear. Despite their intended use at the point of care, 26.3% of tests were evaluated in a laboratory setting. Although newly developed tests seem more sensitive, high-quality evaluations of these tests are lacking.

show abstract

Section: Main Findings Of the Studysupporting

confidence: 75%

Rapid Tests for Influenza, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, and Other Respiratory Viruses: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Bruning

Leeflang²,

Vos

et al. 2017

Clinical Infectious Diseases

150

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, patients with positive RIDTs were not confirmed by PCR, so the false-positivity rate for influenza in our study is unknown. Several other studies, however, have evaluated the Quidel QuickVue AϩB assay and found it to have specificities greater than 97% for influenza A and B compared to RT-PCR (22)(23)(24). Based on this, we would estimate around seven false positives in our patient cohort.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Clinical Impact of Rapid Point-of-Care PCR Influenza Testing in an Urgent Care Setting: a Single-Center Study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seasonal influenza virus causes significant morbidity and mortality each year. Point-of-care (POC) testing using rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs), immunoassays that detect viral antigens, are often used for diagnosis by physician offices and urgent care centers. These tests are rapid but lack sensitivity, which is estimated to be 50 to 70%. Testing by PCR is highly sensitive and specific, but historically these assays have been performed in centralized clinical laboratories necessitating specimen transport and increasing the time to result. Recently, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-waived, POC PCR influenza assays have been developed with >95% sensitivity and specificity compared to centralized PCR assays. To determine the clinical impact of a POC PCR test for influenza, we compared antimicrobial prescribing patterns of one urgent care location using the Cobas LIAT Influenza A/B assay (LIAT assay; Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN) to other urgent care centers in our health system using traditional RIDT, with negative specimens being reflexed to PCR. Antiviral prescribing was lower in patients with a negative LIAT PCR result (2.3%) than in patients with a negative RIDT result (25.3%; P < 0.005). Antivirals were prescribed more often in patients that tested positive by LIAT PCR (82.4%) than in those testing positive by either RIDT or reflex PCR (69.9%; P < 0.05). Antibacterial prescriptions for patients testing negative by LIAT PCR were higher (44.5%) than for those testing negative by RIDT (37.7%), although the difference was not statistically significant. In conclusion, having results from a PCR POC test during the clinic visit improved antiviral prescribing practices compared to having rapid results from an RIDT.

show abstract

“…This indicates that the immunochromatographic test would frequently show false negatives because the IAV copy number can be less than the detection limit of the assay [6]. Indeed, a clinical study showed that most patients are misdiagnosed as negative for influenza virus based on initial testing using immunochromatography [33]. Alternative methods such as RT-qPCR on Roche's cobas Liat System have been developed to address this issue [14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quick assessment of influenza a virus infectivity with a long-range reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is commonly used to detect viral pathogens because of its high sensitivity and specificity. However, conventional PCR methods cannot determine virus infectivity. Virus infectivity is conventionally examined with methods such as the plaque assay, even though such assays require several days. Long-range reverse-transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) has previously been suggested for the rapid assessment of RNA virus infectivity where the loss of infectivity is attributable to genomic fragmentation. Methods: IAV was irradiated with 253.7 nm ultraviolet (UV) rays to induce genomic strand breaks that were confirmed by a full-length RT-PCR assay. The IAV was then subjected to plaque assay, conventional RT-qPCR and long-range RT-qPCR to examine the relationship between infectious titer and copy number. A simple linear regression analysis was performed to examine the correlation between the results of these assays. Results: A long-range RT-qPCR assay was developed and validated for influenza A virus (IAV). Although only a few minutes of UV irradiation was required to completely inactivate IAV, genomic RNA remained detectable by the conventional RT-qPCR and the full-length RT-PCR for NS of viral genome following inactivation. A long-range RT-qPCR assay was then designed using RT-priming at the 3′ termini of each genomic segment and subsequent qPCR of the 5′ regions. UV-mediated IAV inactivation was successfully analyzed by the long-range RT-qPCR assay especially when targeting PA of the viral genome. This was also supported by the regression analysis that the longrange RT-qPCR is highly correlated with plaque assay (Adjusted R 2 = 0.931, P = 0.000066). Conclusions: This study suggests that IAV infectivity can be predicted without the infectivity assays. The rapid detection of pathogenic IAV has, therefore, been achieved with this sensing technology.

show abstract

Performance of rapid influenza diagnostic tests (QuickVue) for Influenza A and B Infection in India

Cited by 12 publications

References 25 publications

Rapid Tests for Influenza, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, and Other Respiratory Viruses: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Rapid Tests for Influenza, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, and Other Respiratory Viruses: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Clinical Impact of Rapid Point-of-Care PCR Influenza Testing in an Urgent Care Setting: a Single-Center Study

Quick assessment of influenza a virus infectivity with a long-range reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About