P A Koul1, H Mir, M A Bhat, U H Khan, M M Khan, M S Chadha, R B Lal. 1. Department of Internal and Pulmonary Medicine and MSM Project for Influenza, Sher I Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid point-of-care (POC) tests provide an economical alternative for rapid diagnosis and treatment of influenza, especially in public health emergency situations. OBJECTIVES: To test the performance of a rapid influenza diagnostic test, QuickVue (Quidel) as a POC test against a real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay for detection of influenza A and B in a developing country setting. STUDY DESIGN: In a prospective observational design, 600 patients with influenza-like illness (ILI) or with severe acute respiratory illness (SARI) who were referred to the Influenza Clinic of a tertiary care hospital in Srinagar, India from September 2012 to April 2013, were enrolled for diagnostic testing for influenza using QuickVue or RT-PCR. All influenza A-positive patients by RT-PCR were further subtyped using primers and probes for A/H1pdm09 and A/H3. RESULTS: Of the 600 patients, 186 tested positive for influenza A or B by RT-PCR (90 A/H1N1pdm09, 7 A/H3 and 89 influenza B), whereas only 43 tested positive for influenza (influenza A=22 and influenza B=21) by QuickVue. Thus, the sensitivity of the QuickVue was only 23% (95% confidence interval, CI: 17.3-29.8) and specificity was 100% (95% CI: 99.1-100) with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 100% (95% CI 91.8-100) and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 74.3% (95% CI: 70.5-77.9) as compared to RT-PCR. CONCLUSIONS: The high specificity of QuickVue suggest that this POC test can be a useful tool for patient management or triaging during a public health crisis but a low sensitivity suggests that a negative test result need to be further tested using RT-PCR.
BACKGROUND: Rapid point-of-care (POC) tests provide an economical alternative for rapid diagnosis and treatment of influenza, especially in public health emergency situations. OBJECTIVES: To test the performance of a rapid influenza diagnostic test, QuickVue (Quidel) as a POC test against a real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay for detection of influenza A and B in a developing country setting. STUDY DESIGN: In a prospective observational design, 600 patients with influenza-like illness (ILI) or with severe acute respiratory illness (SARI) who were referred to the Influenza Clinic of a tertiary care hospital in Srinagar, India from September 2012 to April 2013, were enrolled for diagnostic testing for influenza using QuickVue or RT-PCR. All influenza A-positive patients by RT-PCR were further subtyped using primers and probes for A/H1pdm09 and A/H3. RESULTS: Of the 600 patients, 186 tested positive for influenza A or B by RT-PCR (90 A/H1N1pdm09, 7 A/H3 and 89 influenza B), whereas only 43 tested positive for influenza (influenza A=22 and influenza B=21) by QuickVue. Thus, the sensitivity of the QuickVue was only 23% (95% confidence interval, CI: 17.3-29.8) and specificity was 100% (95% CI: 99.1-100) with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 100% (95% CI 91.8-100) and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 74.3% (95% CI: 70.5-77.9) as compared to RT-PCR. CONCLUSIONS: The high specificity of QuickVue suggest that this POC test can be a useful tool for patient management or triaging during a public health crisis but a low sensitivity suggests that a negative test result need to be further tested using RT-PCR.
Authors: Carlos G Grijalva; Katherine A Poehling; Kathryn M Edwards; Geoffrey A Weinberg; Mary A Staat; Marika K Iwane; William Schaffner; Marie R Griffin Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Caroline Chartrand; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jessica Minion; Timothy Brewer; Madhukar Pai Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-02-27 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Fatimah S Dawood; A Danielle Iuliano; Carrie Reed; Martin I Meltzer; David K Shay; Po-Yung Cheng; Don Bandaranayake; Robert F Breiman; W Abdullah Brooks; Philippe Buchy; Daniel R Feikin; Karen B Fowler; Aubree Gordon; Nguyen Tran Hien; Peter Horby; Q Sue Huang; Mark A Katz; Anand Krishnan; Renu Lal; Joel M Montgomery; Kåre Mølbak; Richard Pebody; Anne M Presanis; Hugo Razuri; Anneke Steens; Yeny O Tinoco; Jacco Wallinga; Hongjie Yu; Sirenda Vong; Joseph Bresee; Marc-Alain Widdowson Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Martin Mehlmann; Aleta B Bonner; John V Williams; Daniela M Dankbar; Chad L Moore; Robert D Kuchta; Amy B Podsiad; John D Tamerius; Erica D Dawson; Kathy L Rowlen Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2007-02-14 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Cees C van den Wijngaard; Liselotte van Asten; Marion P G Koopmans; Wilfrid van Pelt; Nico J D Nagelkerke; Cornelia C H Wielders; Alies van Lier; Wim van der Hoek; Adam Meijer; Gé A Donker; Frederika Dijkstra; Carel Harmsen; Marianne A B van der Sande; Mirjam Kretzschmar Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-02-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Carmen L Charlton; Esther Babady; Christine C Ginocchio; Todd F Hatchette; Robert C Jerris; Yan Li; Mike Loeffelholz; Yvette S McCarter; Melissa B Miller; Susan Novak-Weekley; Audrey N Schuetz; Yi-Wei Tang; Ray Widen; Steven J Drews Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2018-12-12 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Cristalyne Bell; Maureen Goss; Jennifer Birstler; Emily Temte; Guanhua Chen; Peter Shult; Erik Reisdorf; Thomas Haupt; Shari Barlow; Jonathan Temte Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Robert C Benirschke; Erin McElvania; Richard B Thomson; Karen L Kaul; Sanchita Das Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Andrea H L Bruning; Mariska M G Leeflang; Johanna M B W Vos; Rene Spijker; Menno D de Jong; Katja C Wolthers; Dasja Pajkrt Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 9.079