BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza leads to significant morbidity and mortality. Rapid self-tests could improve access to influenza testing in community settings. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a mobile app-guided influenza rapid self-test for adults with influenza like illness (ILI), and identify optimal methods for conducting accuracy studies for home-based assays for influenza and other respiratory viruses. METHODS: This cross-sectional study recruited adults who self-reported ILI online. Participants downloaded a mobile app, which guided them through two low nasal swab self-samples. Participants tested the index swab using a lateral flow assay. Test accuracy results were compared to the reference swab tested in a research laboratory for influenza A/B using a molecular assay. RESULTS: Analysis included 739 participants, 80% were 25-64 years of age, 79% female, and 73% white. Influenza positivity was 5.9% based on the laboratory reference test. Of those who started their test, 92% reported a self-test result. The sensitivity and specificity of participants' interpretation of the test result compared to the laboratory reference standard were 14% (95%CI 5-28%) and 90% (95%CI 87-92%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A mobile app facilitated study procedures to determine the accuracy of a home based test for influenza, however, test sensitivity was low. Recruiting individuals outside clinical settings who self-report ILI symptoms may lead to lower rates of influenza and/or less severe disease. Earlier identification of study subjects within 48 h of symptom onset through inclusion criteria and rapid shipping of tests or pre-positioning tests is needed to allow self-testing earlier in the course of illness, when viral load is higher.
BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza leads to significant morbidity and mortality. Rapid self-tests could improve access to influenza testing in community settings. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a mobile app-guided influenza rapid self-test for adults with influenza like illness (ILI), and identify optimal methods for conducting accuracy studies for home-based assays for influenza and other respiratory viruses. METHODS: This cross-sectional study recruited adults who self-reported ILI online. Participants downloaded a mobile app, which guided them through two low nasal swab self-samples. Participants tested the index swab using a lateral flow assay. Test accuracy results were compared to the reference swab tested in a research laboratory for influenza A/B using a molecular assay. RESULTS: Analysis included 739 participants, 80% were 25-64 years of age, 79% female, and 73% white. Influenza positivity was 5.9% based on the laboratory reference test. Of those who started their test, 92% reported a self-test result. The sensitivity and specificity of participants' interpretation of the test result compared to the laboratory reference standard were 14% (95%CI 5-28%) and 90% (95%CI 87-92%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A mobile app facilitated study procedures to determine the accuracy of a home based test for influenza, however, test sensitivity was low. Recruiting individuals outside clinical settings who self-report ILI symptoms may lead to lower rates of influenza and/or less severe disease. Earlier identification of study subjects within 48 h of symptom onset through inclusion criteria and rapid shipping of tests or pre-positioning tests is needed to allow self-testing earlier in the course of illness, when viral load is higher.
Entities:
Keywords:
Accuracy; Influenza; Mobile application; Rapid diagnostic test; Self-test
Authors: Timothy M Uyeki; Henry H Bernstein; John S Bradley; Janet A Englund; Thomas M File; Alicia M Fry; Stefan Gravenstein; Frederick G Hayden; Scott A Harper; Jon Mark Hirshon; Michael G Ison; B Lynn Johnston; Shandra L Knight; Allison McGeer; Laura E Riley; Cameron R Wolfe; Paul E Alexander; Andrew T Pavia Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Mark H Ebell; Anna M Afonso; Ralph Gonzales; John Stein; Blaise Genton; Nicolas Senn Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Neelam Dhiman; Rita M Miller; Janet L Finley; Matthew D Sztajnkrycer; David M Nestler; Andy J Boggust; Sarah M Jenkins; Thomas F Smith; John W Wilson; Franklin R Cockerill; Bobbi S Pritt Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: John H Powers; M Lourdes Guerrero; Nancy Kline Leidy; Mary P Fairchok; Alice Rosenberg; Andrés Hernández; Sonja Stringer; Christina Schofield; Patricia Rodríguez-Zulueta; Katherine Kim; Patrick J Danaher; Hilda Ortega-Gallegos; Elizabeth Dansie Bacci; Nathaniel Stepp; Arturo Galindo-Fraga; Kristina St Clair; Michael Rajnik; Erin A McDonough; Michelande Ridoré; John C Arnold; Eugene V Millar; Guillermo M Ruiz-Palacios Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2016-01-05 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Fiona P Havers; Lauri A Hicks; Jessie R Chung; Manjusha Gaglani; Kempapura Murthy; Richard K Zimmerman; Lisa A Jackson; Joshua G Petrie; Huong Q McLean; Mary Patricia Nowalk; Michael L Jackson; Arnold S Monto; Edward A Belongia; Brendan Flannery; Alicia M Fry Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2018-06-01
Authors: Rachel E Geyer; Jack Henry Kotnik; Victoria Lyon; Elisabeth Brandstetter; Monica Zigman Suchsland; Peter D Han; Chelsey Graham; Misja Ilcisin; Ashley E Kim; Helen Y Chu; Deborah A Nickerson; Lea M Starita; Trevor Bedford; Barry Lutz; Matthew J Thompson Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2022-02-22
Authors: Jack Henry Kotnik; Shawna Cooper; Sam Smedinghoff; Piyusha Gade; Kelly Scherer; Mitchell Maier; Jessie Juusola; Ernesto Ramirez; Pejman Naraghi-Arani; Victoria Lyon; Barry Lutz; Matthew Thompson Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 5.948