OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of influenza virus detection by two commercial reverse transcriptase PCR methods compared with a reference real-time PCR. METHODS: 122 clinical specimens were tested on Xpert(®) Flu and RealStar(®) Influenza Screen & Type. A reference real-time RT-PCR, at a specialist laboratory was chosen as the gold standard for comparison. RESULTS: RealStar(®) Influenza Screen & Type had higher sensitivity for influenza A and influenza B respectively (92.3% and 88.2%) when compared to Xpert(®) Flu (78.8% and 76.5%). Both tests had excellent specificity. CONCLUSIONS: The simplicity and speed of the Xpert(®) Flu system could allow it to be used in the near-patient setting; however in circumstances where excluding a diagnosis of influenza may be critical, negative specimens may need to be repeated using a more sensitive assay.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of influenza virus detection by two commercial reverse transcriptase PCR methods compared with a reference real-time PCR. METHODS: 122 clinical specimens were tested on Xpert(®) Flu and RealStar(®) Influenza Screen & Type. A reference real-time RT-PCR, at a specialist laboratory was chosen as the gold standard for comparison. RESULTS: RealStar(®) Influenza Screen & Type had higher sensitivity for influenza A and influenza B respectively (92.3% and 88.2%) when compared to Xpert(®) Flu (78.8% and 76.5%). Both tests had excellent specificity. CONCLUSIONS: The simplicity and speed of the Xpert(®) Flu system could allow it to be used in the near-patient setting; however in circumstances where excluding a diagnosis of influenza may be critical, negative specimens may need to be repeated using a more sensitive assay.
Authors: Pierre Negri; Joo Young Choi; Cheryl Jones; S Mark Tompkins; Ralph A Tripp; Richard A Dluhy Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2014-06-27 Impact factor: 6.986