» Articles » PMID: 28772170

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Real-time PCR Cobas Liat Influenza A/B Assay and the Alere I Influenza A&B NEAR Isothermal Nucleic Acid Amplification Assay for the Detection of Influenza Using Adult Nasopharyngeal Specimens

Overview
Journal J Clin Virol
Specialty Microbiology
Date 2017 Aug 4
PMID 28772170
Citations 19
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Accurate detection of influenza requires diagnostic testing; however, methods such as RADTs and central laboratory-based tests are limited by low sensitivity and time constraints, respectively.

Objective: To compare the performances of the cobas Liat Influenza A/B and Alere™ i Influenza A&B point-of-care (POC) assays for detecting influenza A and B viruses using fresh nasopharyngeal specimens with the GenMark Dx Respiratory Viral Panel as the reference method, a FDA cleared IVD PCR test.

Study Design: A total of 87 samples collected in viral transport medium from adults ≥18 years of age were re-tested on both POC assays (based on the reference PCR method, 29 were influenza A and 18 were influenza B virus positive).

Results: The overall sensitivity and specificity of the cobas Influenza A/B for the detection of influenza A and B relative to reference PCR was 97.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.9%, 99.6%) and 97.5% (95% CI: 87.1%, 99.6%), respectively, while the sensitivity of the Alere i Influenza A&B assay relative to the reference PCR method was 63.8% (95% CI: 49.5%, 76.0%) and the specificity was 97.5% (95% CI: 87.1%, 99.6%). The individual sensitivities and specificities of the cobas Influenza A/B assay for influenza A alone and influenza B alone were comparable to those of the reference PCR method (influenza A: sensitivity of 100% [95% CI: 88.3%, 100.0%] and specificity of 98.3% [95% CI: 90.9%, 99.7%]; influenza B: sensitivity of 94.4% [95% CI: 74.2%, 99.0%] and specificity of 100% [95% CI: 94.7%, 100.0%]). For the Alere i Influenza A&B assay, the individual specificities for influenza A and B were comparable to those of the reference PCR method (98.3% [95% CI: 90.9%, 99.7%] and 97.1% [95% CI: 90.0%, 99.2%], respectively), while the individual sensitivities were low relative to reference PCR (55.2% [95% CI: 37.5%, 71.6%] and 72.2% [95% CI: 49.1%, 87.5%], respectively).

Conclusion: The cobas Influenza A/B assay demonstrated performance equivalent to laboratory-based PCR, and could replace rapid antigen tests.

Citing Articles

Influenza viruses and SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis via sensitive testing methods in clinical application.

Zhang L, Li C, Shao S, Zhang Z, Chen D Heliyon. 2024; 10(18):e36410.

PMID: 39381246 PMC: 11458974. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36410.


[Diagnosis by isothermal amplification of nucleic acids. Opportunity for community pharmacies].

Montero-Gomez A Farm Comunitarios. 2024; 16(2):46-53.

PMID: 39156031 PMC: 11328073. DOI: 10.33620/FC.2173-9218.(2024).14.


Symptomatic Differences between Influenza A/H3N2 and A/H1N1 in Korea.

Lee H, Ryu G, Lee K J Clin Med. 2023; 12(17).

PMID: 37685717 PMC: 10489067. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12175651.


Characteristics of patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and seasonal influenza at time of hospital admission: a single center comparative study.

Sieber P, Flury D, Gusewell S, Albrich W, Boggian K, Gardiol C BMC Infect Dis. 2021; 21(1):271.

PMID: 33731019 PMC: 7968573. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-05957-4.


A critical review of point-of-care diagnostic technologies to combat viral pandemics.

Everitt M, Tillery A, David M, Singh N, Borison A, White I Anal Chim Acta. 2021; 1146:184-199.

PMID: 33461715 PMC: 7548029. DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2020.10.009.