» Articles » PMID: 12904343

Comparison of the Directigen Flu A+B Test, the QuickVue Influenza Test, and Clinical Case Definition to Viral Culture and Reverse Transcription-PCR for Rapid Diagnosis of Influenza Virus Infection

Overview
Specialty Microbiology
Date 2003 Aug 9
PMID 12904343
Citations 64
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The diagnostic performances of the clinical case definition of influenza virus infection based on the combination of fever and cough and of two rapid influenza diagnostic tests, the Directigen Flu A+B test (Directigen; BD Diagnostic Systems, Sparks, Md.) and the QuickVue influenza test (QuickVue; Quidel, San Diego, Calif.), were compared to those of viral culture and an in-house reverse transcription (RT)-PCR during the 2000-2001 flu season. Two hundred consecutive nasopharyngeal aspirates were analyzed from 192 patients, including 122 adults and 70 children. Viral culture identified influenza virus A in 16 samples and influenza virus B in 55 samples, whereas RT-PCR identified influenza virus A in 21 samples and influenza virus B in 64 samples. When RT-PCR was used as the reference standard, the likelihood ratios for a positive test were 40.0 for Directigen, 8.6 for QuickVue, and 1.4 for the combination of fever and cough, whereas the likelihood ratios for a negative test were 0.22, 0.16, and 0.48, respectively. Our study suggests that (i). the poor specificity (35 to 58%) and the poor positive predictive value (41 to 60%) of the clinical case definition of influenza preclude its use for prediction of influenza virus infections during epidemics, especially when infection control decision making in the hospital setting is considered; (ii). Directigen has a higher diagnostic yield than QuickVue but is associated with a larger number of invalid results; (iii). the sensitivities of the rapid diagnostic tests are significantly lower with samples from adults than with samples from children, with the rates of false-negative results reaching up to 29%; and (iv). RT-PCR detects more cases of influenza than viral culture, and this greater accuracy makes it a more useful reference standard.

Citing Articles

Highly Sensitive and Specific Detection of Influenza A Viruses Using Bimolecular Fluorescence Complementation (BiFC) Reporter System.

Lee U, Oh Y, Kwon O, Shin Y, Kim M Biosensors (Basel). 2023; 13(8).

PMID: 37622868 PMC: 10452828. DOI: 10.3390/bios13080782.


Influenza A, Influenza B, and SARS-CoV-2 Similarities and Differences - A Focus on Diagnosis.

Havasi A, Visan S, Cainap C, Cainap S, Mihaila A, Pop L Front Microbiol. 2022; 13:908525.

PMID: 35794916 PMC: 9251468. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.908525.


Facile, Rapid, and Low-Cost Detection for Influenza Viruses and Respiratory Syncytial Virus Based on a Catalytic DNA Assembly Circuit.

Wu H, Zou M, Fan X, Su F, Xiao F, Zhou M ACS Omega. 2022; 7(17):15074-15081.

PMID: 35557683 PMC: 9089383. DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.2c00882.


Flu@home: the Comparative Accuracy of an At-Home Influenza Rapid Diagnostic Test Using a Prepositioned Test Kit, Mobile App, Mail-in Reference Sample, and Symptom-Based Testing Trigger.

Kotnik J, Cooper S, Smedinghoff S, Gade P, Scherer K, Maier M J Clin Microbiol. 2022; 60(3):e0207021.

PMID: 35107302 PMC: 8925896. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02070-21.


Improved Influenza Diagnostics through Thermal Contrast Amplification.

Liu Y, Zhan L, Wang Y, Kangas J, Larkin D, Boulware D Diagnostics (Basel). 2021; 11(3).

PMID: 33800088 PMC: 7999055. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11030462.


References
1.
Covalciuc K, Webb K, Carlson C . Comparison of four clinical specimen types for detection of influenza A and B viruses by optical immunoassay (FLU OIA test) and cell culture methods. J Clin Microbiol. 1999; 37(12):3971-4. PMC: 85858. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.37.12.3971-3974.1999. View

2.
Carrat F, Tachet A, Rouzioux C, Housset B, Valleron A . Evaluation of clinical case definitions of influenza: detailed investigation of patients during the 1995-1996 epidemic in France. Clin Infect Dis. 1999; 28(2):283-90. DOI: 10.1086/515117. View

3.
Landry M, Cohen S, Ferguson D . Impact of sample type on rapid detection of influenza virus A by cytospin-enhanced immunofluorescence and membrane enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. J Clin Microbiol. 2000; 38(1):429-30. PMC: 88742. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.38.1.429-430.2000. View

4.
Treanor J, Hayden F, Vrooman P, Barbarash R, Bettis R, Riff D . Efficacy and safety of the oral neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir in treating acute influenza: a randomized controlled trial. US Oral Neuraminidase Study Group. JAMA. 2000; 283(8):1016-24. DOI: 10.1001/jama.283.8.1016. View

5.
Noyola D, Clark B, ODONNELL F, Atmar R, Greer J, Demmler G . Comparison of a new neuraminidase detection assay with an enzyme immunoassay, immunofluorescence, and culture for rapid detection of influenza A and B viruses in nasal wash specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 2000; 38(3):1161-5. PMC: 86363. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.38.3.1161-1165.2000. View