Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2018 Feb;32(2):e22234.
doi: 10.1002/jcla.22234. Epub 2017 Apr 13.

Comparison of three rapid influenza diagnostic tests with digital readout systems and one conventional rapid influenza diagnostic test

Sook Won Ryu  1 , In Bum Suh  1 , Se-Min Ryu  2 , Kyu Sung Shin  3 , Hyon-Suk Kim  4 , Juwon Kim  5 , Young Uh  5 , Kap Jun Yoon  5 , Jong-Han Lee  5
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of three rapid influenza diagnostic tests with digital readout systems and one conventional rapid influenza diagnostic test

Sook Won Ryu et al. J Clin Lab Anal. 2018 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) show variable sensitivities in clinical settings. We aimed to compare three digital RIDTs and one conventional RIDT.

Methods: We assessed 218 nasopharyngeal swabs from patients between neonates and 90 years old in 2016. Three digital RIDTs 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 RIDTs were tested with diluted solutions from the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) to compare lower detection limit. Cross-reactivity of four RIDTs 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 RIDTs 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 RIDTs according to specific, prevalent influenza subtypes.

Keywords: digital readout system; influenza; rapid influenza diagnostic test; sensitivity; specificity.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Kumar S, Henrickson KJ. Update on influenza diagnostics: lessons from the novel H1N1 influenza A pandemic. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012;25:344‐361. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cruz AT, Demmler‐Harrison GJ, Caviness AC, Buffone GJ, Revell PA. Performance of a rapid influenza test in children during the H1N1 2009 influenza a outbreak. Pediatrics. 2010;125:e645‐e650. - PubMed
    1. Harper SA, Bradley JS, Englund JA, et al. Seasonal influenza in adults and children‐diagnosis, treatment, chemoprophylaxis, and institutional outbreak management: clinical practice guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:1003‐1032. - PMC - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization (WHO) . int [http://www.who.int/en/]. Geneva: Use of influenza rapid diagnostic tests. 2010. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241599283_eng.pdf. Accessed February 10, 2017.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) . gov [http://www.cdc.gov/]. Atlanta, GA: Guidance for clinicians on the use of rapid influenza diagnostic tests. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pdf/professionals/diagnosis/clinician_guidance_r.... Accessed February 10, 2017.

Publication types