Performance of the Quidel Sofia rapid influenza diagnostic test during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 influenza seasons

Assessment of potential factors associated with the sensitivity and specificity of Sofia Influenza A+B Fluorescent Immunoassay in an ambulatory care setting

Background

Seasonal influenza leads to an increase in outpatient clinic visits. Timely, accurate, and affordable testing could facilitate improved treatment outcomes. Rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) provide results in as little as 15 minutes and are relatively inexpensive, but have reduced sensitivity when compared to RT-PCR. The contributions of multiple factors related to test performance are not well defined for ambulatory care settings. We assessed clinical and laboratory factors that may affect the sensitivity and specificity of Sofia Influenza A+B Fluorescence Immunoassay.

Study design

We performed a post-hoc assessment of surveillance data amassed over seven years from five primary care clinics. We analyzed 4,475 paired RIDT and RT-PCR results from specimens collected from patients presenting with respiratory symptoms and examined eleven potential factors with additional sub-categories that could affect RIDT sensitivity.

Results

In an unadjusted analysis, greater sensitivity was associated with the presence of an influenza-like illness (ILI), no other virus detected, no seasonal influenza vaccination, younger age, lower cycle threshold value, fewer days since illness onset, nasal discharge, stuffy nose, and fever. After adjustment, presence of an ILI, younger age, fewer days from onset, no co-detection, and presence of a nasal discharge maintained significance.

Conclusion

Clinical and laboratory factors may affect RIDT sensitivity. Identifying potential factors during point-of-care testing could aid clinicians in appropriately interpreting negative influenza RIDT results.

Clinical manifestations of influenza and performance of rapid influenza diagnostic test: A university hospital setting

BACKGROUND

Rapid influenza diagnostic test (RIDT) is a diagnostic tool that detects the influenza virus nucleoprotein antigen. The RIDT is widely used in clinical practice because it is simple and cost-effective, and provides results within 10-15 minutes.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed at evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of the Sofia® RIDT compared with the Luminex® multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The other goal was to determine the predicting factors for diagnosing influenza among individuals with influenza-like illness (ILI).

METHOD

Patients with ILI who had the results of both tests were retrospectively reviewed. We determined the performances of the RIDT.

RESULTS

A total of 473 patients were included with a median age of 58 (interquartile range 41-74) years. Of these, 47.1% were male, and 16.2% were diagnosed with influenza by the RIDT or RT-PCR's positive test. For influenza A, the RIDT showed a sensitivity of 76.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 59.8-88.6) and a specificity of 97.9% (95% CI 96.1-99.0), whereas for influenza B, it showed a sensitivity of 47.1% (95% CI 23.0-72.2) and a specificity of 97.1% (95% CI 95.2-98.5). Patients with influenza were more likely to present with fever (81.8% vs 63.1%), cough (81.8% vs 66.1%), and rhinorrhea (41.6% vs 26.5%) compared to those without influenza (P < 0.05, all), and had a higher proportion of pneumonia (19.5% vs 10.6%, P = 0.029) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (5.2% vs 1.5%, P = 0.063). The predicting factors for influenza among patients presented with ILI were cough (odds ratio [OR] 2.77; 95% CI 0.21-0.81, P = 0.010), rhinorrhea (OR 1.87; 95% CI 1.03-3.36, P = 0.037), and higher body temperature (OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.23-2.19, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity of the RIDT for the diagnosis of influenza is fair in contrast to the specificity. Among patients with ILI, cough, rhinorrhea, and higher body temperature might be factors for predicting influenza.

The Limit of Detection Matters: The Case for Benchmarking Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Testing

BACKGROUND

Resolving the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires diagnostic testing to determine which individuals are infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The current gold standard is to perform reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on nasopharyngeal samples. Best-in-class assays demonstrate a limit of detection (LoD) of approximately 100 copies of viral RNA per milliliter of transport media. However, LoDs of currently approved assays vary over 10,000-fold. Assays with higher LoDs will miss infected patients. However, the relative clinical sensitivity of these assays remains unknown.

METHODS

Here we model the clinical sensitivities of assays based on their LoD. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were obtained from 4700 first-time positive patients using the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 Emergency Use Authorization test. We derived viral loads from Ct based on PCR principles and empiric analysis. A sliding scale relationship for predicting clinical sensitivity was developed from analysis of viral load distribution relative to assay LoD.

RESULTS

Ct values were reliably repeatable over short time testing windows, providing support for use as a tool to estimate viral load. Viral load was found to be relatively evenly distributed across log10 bins of incremental viral load. Based on these data, each 10-fold increase in LoD is expected to lower assay sensitivity by approximately 13%.

CONCLUSIONS

The assay LoD meaningfully impacts clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 tests. The highest LoDs on the market will miss a majority of infected patients. Assays should therefore be benchmarked against a universal standard to allow cross-comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection methods.

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Quidel Sofia Rapid Influenza Fluorescent Immunoassay in Patients with Influenza-like Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Although the Quidel Sofia rapid influenza fluorescent immunoassay (FIA) is widely used to identify influenza A and B, the diagnostic accuracy of this test remains unclear. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of this test compared to reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and a hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (HSROC) of this test for identifying influenza A and B were determined using meta-analysis. A sensitivity subgroup analysis was performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity within selected studies.

Results

We identified 17 studies involving 8,334 patients. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of the Quidel Sofia rapid influenza FIA for identifying influenza A were 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71–0.83), 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98–0.99), and 251.26 (95% CI, 139.39–452.89), respectively. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of this test for identifying influenza B were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.60–0.82), 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96–0.99), and 140.20 (95% CI, 55.92–351.54), respectively. The area under the HSROC for this test for identifying influenza A was similar to that for identifying influenza B. Age was considered a probable source of heterogeneity.

Conclusion

Pooled sensitivities of the Quidel Sofia rapid influenza FIA for identifying influenza A and B did not quite meet the target level (≥80%). Thus, caution is needed when interpreting data of this study due to substantial between-study heterogeneity.

The Limit of Detection Matters: The Case for Benchmarking Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Testing

Background

Resolving the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires diagnostic testing to determine which individuals are infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The current gold standard is to perform reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on nasopharyngeal samples. Best-in-class assays demonstrate a limit of detection (LoD) of approximately 100 copies of viral RNA per milliliter of transport media. However, LoDs of currently approved assays vary over 10,000-fold. Assays with higher LoDs will miss infected patients. However, the relative clinical sensitivity of these assays remains unknown.

Methods

Here we model the clinical sensitivities of assays based on their LoD. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were obtained from 4700 first-time positive patients using the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 Emergency Use Authorization test. We derived viral loads from Ct based on PCR principles and empiric analysis. A sliding scale relationship for predicting clinical sensitivity was developed from analysis of viral load distribution relative to assay LoD.

Results

Ct values were reliably repeatable over short time testing windows, providing support for use as a tool to estimate viral load. Viral load was found to be relatively evenly distributed across log₁₀ bins of incremental viral load. Based on these data, each 10-fold increase in LoD is expected to lower assay sensitivity by approximately 13%.

Conclusions

The assay LoD meaningfully impacts clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 tests. The highest LoDs on the market will miss a majority of infected patients. Assays should therefore be benchmarked against a universal standard to allow cross-comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection methods.

Novel Use of Rapid Antigen Influenza Testing in the Outpatient Setting To Provide an Early Warning Sign of Influenza Activity in the Emergency Departments of an Integrated Health System

Seasonal influenza virus is associated with high morbidity and mortality especially in vulnerable patient populations. Here, we demonstrate the novel use of Sofia influenza A+B fluorescent immunoassay (FIA), a rapid antigen-based influenza point-of-care test (POCT), combined with Virena software for automatic deidentified tracking of influenza activity across the Los Angeles area and for predicting surges of influenza cases in the emergency department (ED). We divided outpatient clinics into 6 geographic zones and compared weekly influenza activity. In the outpatient setting, there were 1,666 and 274 influenza A and influenza B positives, respectively, across the 2018 to 2019 influenza season and 1,857 and 1,449 influenza A and influenza B positives, respectively, during the 2019 to 2020 influenza season, with zone-specific differences observed. Moreover, we found that a rapid increase in outpatient influenza was followed by an influx in influenza-positive cases in the ED, offering a 1- to 3-week warning sign for ED influx of triple or quadruple the number of influenza cases compared to the prior week. Sofia influenza A+B FIA allows for surveillance of real-time deidentified influenza activity. Tracking of such data may serve as a valuable region-specific influenza indicator and predictor to guide infection prevention measures in both the outpatient and hospital settings. High-impact interventions include designating areas for waiting rooms for influenza-like illnesses, altering staff scheduling in anticipation of surges, and securing sufficient personal protective equipment and antivirals during the height of influenza season.

SARS-CoV2 Testing: The Limit of Detection Matters

Resolving the COVID-19 pandemic requires diagnostic testing to determine which individuals are infected and which are not. The current gold standard is to perform RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal samples. Best-in-class assays demonstrate a limit of detection (LoD) of ~100 copies of viral RNA per milliliter of transport media. However, LoDs of currently approved assays vary over 10,000-fold. Assays with higher LoDs will miss more infected patients, resulting in more false negatives. However, the false-negative rate for a given LoD remains unknown. Here we address this question using over 27,500 test results for patients from across our healthcare network tested using the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 EUA. These results suggest that each 10-fold increase in LoD is expected to increase the false negative rate by 13%, missing an additional one in eight infected patients. The highest LoDs on the market will miss a majority of infected patients, with false negative rates as high as 70%. These results suggest that choice of assay has meaningful clinical and epidemiological consequences. The limit of detection matters.

Impact of the Sofia® Influenza A+B FIA rapid diagnostic test in a pediatric emergency department

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a rapid diagnostic test for influenza (the Sofia^® Influenza A+B FIA rapid diagnostic test [RDT]) in a pediatric emergency department (PED).

METHODS

A retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study was conducted in the PED of the Lille University Hospital between 2013 and 2015. All patients under 18 years of age for whom influenza RDT was administered were included. Clinical data, management, and related hospitalizations were compared between positive and negative RDT groups. The length of stay in the PED (main outcome) and the number of additional tests (biological and radiographic tests) between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 238 tests were reported: 119 positive, 110 negative, nine invalid. The mean length of stay in the PED was significantly lower in the positive RDT group: 4.0h vs. 7.4h (P<10^-6). Patients with positive RDT had significantly fewer biological tests (20% vs. 56%; P<10^-7) and radiographs (23% vs. 52%; P<10^-5). The prevalence of hospitalizations in a short-stay unit was significantly lower in patients with positive RDT (0.8% vs. 9.1%; P=0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed a significant medical impact of the use of Sofia^® Influenza RDT A+B FIA in a PED regarding the length of stay and the number of additional explorations.

Diagnostic performance of the Sofia® influenza A+B fluorescent immunoassay in adult outpatients in Northern Taiwan

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Sofia influenza A+B fluorescent immunoassay (Sofia FIA), we performed a prospective study at the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taiwan from January 2012 to December 2013. Patients who presented at out-patient clinics or the emergency department with influenza-like illness were included. Upper respiratory tract specimens were collected from oropharynx or nasopharynx. Performance of the Sofia FIA was compared to that of the Formosa One Sure Flu A/B Rapid Test. A Real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay (RT-PCR) and/or virus culture were used as reference standards. Of the 109 enrolled patients, the sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of the Sofia FIA to detect influenza A virus were 82%, 89%, 77%, and 89%, respectively. These parameters were 100% when the samples were from nasopharynx. The positive predictive value for influenza B virus detection was 29%. The sensitivity of the Sofia FIA for detection of influenza A virus was 93% between days 2 and 4 after onset of symptoms. For specimens with low viral loads (RT-PCR cycle threshold between 30 and 34.9), the sensitivity of The Sofia FIA was 83% (10/12). The Sofia FIA performed effectively in detecting influenza A virus infection. With nasopharyngeal samples, the performance was comparable to RT-PCR. Although influenza viral load typically decreases with time, the Sofia FIA was sensitive enough to identify influenza infecting patients presenting after several days of illness. However, a high false positive rate limits the assay's usefulness to identify influenza B virus infection.

Performance of the Quidel Sofia rapid influenza diagnostic test during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 influenza seasons

The Quidel Sofia Influenza A+B Fluorescent Immunoassay was used to test nasal swab specimens from patients with influenza‐like illness at US–Mexico border‐area clinics in the 2012–2013 and 2013–2014 influenza seasons. Compared with real‐time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, the overall sensitivities and specificities were 83% and 81%, and 62% and 93%, respectively.