Evaluation of the Alere I influenza A&B nucleic acid amplification test by use of respiratory specimens collected in viral transport medium

A New Quantum Dot-Based Lateral Flow Immunoassay for the Rapid Detection of Influenza Viruses

Rapid and accurate diagnosis of influenza is crucial to contain influenza virus outbreaks. In clinical settings, lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) are widely used for rapid influenza antigen detection. The choice of label plays an important role in determining the sensitivity of the LFIA. Quantum dots are one of the most promising fluorescent reporters. Here, we evaluated a novel quantum dot-based assay, QuantumPACK Easy Influenza A + B (QuantumPACK Easy; BioSquare Inc., Korea). A total of 394 nasopharyngeal swab samples, including 94 influenza A virus-positive, 98 influenza B virus-positive, 175 influenza A and B virus-negative, and 27 other respiratory pathogen-positive samples, were collected. Samples were tested with QuantumPACK Easy, Allplex RP real-time RT-PCR assay (Allplex RP; Seegene, Korea), and Sofia Influenza A + B FIA (Sofia; Quidel, CA, USA). The sensitivity and specificity of QuantumPACK Easy was analyzed using the Allplex RP assay. The agreement between QuantumPACK Easy and Sofia assays was also analyzed. The sensitivity of QuantumPACK Easy for influenza A and B was 80.9% and 83.7%, respectively. The specificity of QuantumPACK Easy was 100%. Cross-reactivity with other respiratory pathogens was not observed. Total agreement between QuantumPACK Easy and Sofia was 89.6% (kappa 0.783). The sensitivity of the Sofia assay was 66.0% for influenza A virus and 61.2% for influenza B virus. QuantumPACK Easy had acceptable performance, with better sensitivity than a commercially available antigen detection assay, possibly due to the characteristics of the quantum dot.

Nucleic Acid-Based Sensing Techniques for Diagnostics and Surveillance of Influenza

Influenza virus poses a threat to global health by causing seasonal outbreaks as well as three pandemics in the 20th century. In humans, disease is primarily caused by influenza A and B viruses, while influenza C virus causes mild disease mostly in children. Influenza D is an emerging virus found in cattle and pigs. To mitigate the morbidity and mortality associated with influenza, rapid and accurate diagnostic tests need to be deployed. However, the high genetic diversity displayed by influenza viruses presents a challenge to the development of a robust diagnostic test. Nucleic acid-based tests are more accurate than rapid antigen tests for influenza and are therefore better candidates to be used in both diagnostic and surveillance applications. Here, we review various nucleic acid-based techniques that have been applied towards the detection of influenza viruses in order to evaluate their utility as both diagnostic and surveillance tools. We discuss both traditional as well as novel methods to detect influenza viruses by covering techniques that require nucleic acid amplification or direct detection of viral RNA as well as comparing advantages and limitations for each method. There has been substantial progress in the development of nucleic acid-based sensing techniques for the detection of influenza virus. However, there is still an urgent need for a rapid and reliable influenza diagnostic test that can be used at point-of-care in order to enhance responsiveness to both seasonal and pandemic influenza outbreaks.

Comparison of detection rate of 16 sampling methods for respiratory viruses: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of clinical data and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Respiratory viruses (RVs) is a common cause of illness in people of all ages, at present, different types of sampling methods are available for respiratory viral diagnosis. However, the diversity of available sampling methods and the limited direct comparisons in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) make decision-making difficult. We did a network meta-analysis, which accounted for both direct and indirect comparisons, to determine the detection rate of different sampling methods for RVs.

METHODS

Relevant articles were retrieved comprehensively by searching the online databases of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane published before 25 March 2020. With the help of R V.3.6.3 software and 'GeMTC V.0.8.2' package, network meta-analysis was performed within a Bayesian framework. Node-splitting method and I ² test combined leverage graphs and Gelman-Rubin-Brooks plots were conducted to evaluate the model's accuracy. The rank probabilities in direct and cumulative rank plots were also incorporated to rank the corresponding sampling methods for overall and specific virus.

RESULTS

16 sampling methods with 54 438 samples from 57 literatures were ultimately involved in this study. The model indicated good consistency and convergence but high heterogeneity, hence, random-effect analysis was applied. The top three sampling methods for RVs were nasopharyngeal wash (NPW), mid-turbinate swab (MTS) and nasopharyngeal swab (NPS). Despite certain differences, the results of virus-specific subanalysis were basically consistent with RVs: MTS, NPW and NPS for influenza; MTS, NPS and NPW for influenza-a and b; saliva, NPW and NPS for rhinovirus and parainfluenza; NPW, MTS and nasopharyngeal aspirate for respiratory syncytial virus; saliva, NPW and MTS for adenovirus and sputum; MTS and NPS for coronavirus.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis provides supporting evidences that NPW, MTS and NPS have higher diagnostic value regarding RVs infection, moreover, particular preferred methods should be considered in terms of specific virus pandemic. Of course, subsequent RCTs with larger samples are required to validate our findings.

The impact of point-of-care testing for influenza A and B on patient flow and management in a medical assessment unit of a general hospital

Objectives

Timely implementation of influenza infection control and treatment can significantly reduce the impact on Hospital resources and patient management when demand is at peak. Turnaround times of Laboratory based screening tests for the diagnosis of influenza may have an impact on the implementation of infection control measures and treatment. In this study the objectives included determining the correlation between the Abbott ID NOW point-of-care testing (POCT) instrument using the Influenza A&B2 test and the laboratory based GeneXpert Flu+RSV kit. In addition the impact of the POCT instrument on the prescription of antivirals and antibiotics was evaluated by comparing with practice when the instrument was not in place.

Results

The results of the correlation study with a cohort of 54 patients revealed the Abbott ID NOW POCT has 92% sensitivity for the detection of Influenza A, while specificity was 100% for both Influenza A and B. The impact of the POCT instrument on the frequency of prescription of antivirals and amount of antibiotics consumed (33% reduction in antibiotic consumption in a cohort of 65 (2017) and 61 (2018)) was significant. In addition the average patient length of Hospital stay was significantly reduced from 5.26 days to 3.73 days.

Comparison of the ID Now Influenza A & B 2, Cobas Influenza A/B, and Xpert Xpress Flu Point-of-Care Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for Influenza A/B Virus Detection in Children

Early diagnosis of influenza (Flu) is critical for patient management and infection control. The ID Now influenza A & B 2 (ID Now) assay (Abbott Laboratories), Cobas influenza A/B nucleic acid test (LIAT; Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.), and Xpert Xpress Flu (Xpert; Cepheid) are rapid, point-of-care molecular assays for Flu virus detection. The study aim was to compare the performances of these three commercially available Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-waived Flu virus assays.

Early diagnosis of influenza (Flu) is critical for patient management and infection control. The ID Now influenza A & B 2 (ID Now) assay (Abbott Laboratories), Cobas influenza A/B nucleic acid test (LIAT; Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.), and Xpert Xpress Flu (Xpert; Cepheid) are rapid, point-of-care molecular assays for Flu virus detection. The study aim was to compare the performances of these three commercially available Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-waived Flu virus assays. We prospectively enrolled 201 children <18 years old from January to April 2018 and collected nasopharyngeal swab specimens in viral medium. Aliquots were frozen for testing on different diagnostic platforms, as per the manufacturers’ instructions. CDC Flu A/B PCR was used as a reference method to evaluate the performances of these three platforms. Among the 201 specimens tested, the CDC Flu A/B PCR assay detected Flu A/B virus in 107 samples (Flu A virus, 73 samples; Flu B virus, 36 samples; dual Flu A/B virus positive, 2 samples), while the ID Now virus detected 102 samples (Flu A virus, 69 samples; Flu B virus, 37 samples; dual Flu A/B virus positive, 4 samples; invalid rate, 1/201 [0.5%]), the LIAT detected 112 samples (Flu A virus, 74 samples; Flu B virus, 38 samples; invalid rate, 11/201 [5.5%]), and the Xpert assay detected 112 samples (Flu A virus, 76 samples; Flu B virus, 36 samples; invalid rate, 6/201 [3.0%]). The overall sensitivities for the ID Now assay, LIAT, and Xpert assay for Flu A virus detection (93.2%, 100%, and 100%, respectively) and Flu B virus detection (97.2%, 94.4%, and 91.7%, respectively) were comparable. The specificity for Flu A and B virus detection by all methods was >97%. These molecular assays had higher sensitivity than did a historical standard-of-care test from the BD Veritor antigen test (Flu A virus, 79.5%; Flu B virus, 66.7%).

Advances in Directly Amplifying Nucleic Acids from Complex Samples

Advances in nucleic acid amplification technologies have revolutionized diagnostics for systemic, inherited, and infectious diseases. Current assays and platforms, however, often require lengthy experimental procedures and multiple instruments to remove contaminants and inhibitors from clinically-relevant, complex samples. This requirement of sample preparation has been a bottleneck for using nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) at the point of care (POC), though advances in “lab-on-chip” platforms that integrate sample preparation and NAATs have made great strides in this space. Alternatively, direct NAATs—techniques that minimize or even bypass sample preparation—present promising strategies for developing POC diagnostic tools for analyzing real-world samples. In this review, we discuss the current status of direct NAATs. Specifically, we surveyed potential testing systems published from 1989 to 2017, and analyzed their performances in terms of robustness, sensitivity, clinical relevance, and suitability for POC diagnostics. We introduce bubble plots to facilitate our analysis, as bubble plots enable effective visualization of the performances of these direct NAATs. Through our review, we hope to initiate an in-depth examination of direct NAATs and their potential for realizing POC diagnostics, and ultimately transformative technologies that can further enhance healthcare.

Cost-Effective Respiratory Virus Testing

The timely and accurate diagnosis of respiratory virus infections has the potential to optimize downstream (posttesting) use of limited health care resources, including antibiotics, antivirals, ancillary testing, and inpatient and emergency department beds. Cost-effective algorithms for respiratory virus testing must take into consideration numerous factors, including which patients should be tested, what testing should be performed (for example, antigen testing versus reverse transcription-PCR testing or influenza A/B testing versus testing with a comprehensive respiratory virus panel), and the turnaround time necessary to achieve the desired posttesting outcomes. Despite the clinical impact of respiratory virus infections, the cost-effectiveness of respiratory virus testing is incompletely understood. In this article, we review the literature pertaining to the cost-effectiveness of respiratory virus testing in pediatric and adult patient populations, in emergency department, outpatient, and inpatient clinical settings. Furthermore, we consider the cost-effectiveness of a variety of testing methods, including rapid antigen tests, direct fluorescent antibody assays, and nucleic acid amplification tests.

Impact of Rapid On-demand Molecular Diagnosis of Pediatric Seasonal Influenza on Laboratory Workflow and Testing Costs: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Seasonal influenza imposes a considerable burden worldwide. We aimed to evaluate impact of rapid pediatric seasonal influenza diagnosis on laboratory workflow and cost using a rapid antigen detection-based test combined with either a reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or the Alere i Influenza A and B (Alere i) assay for confirmation of negative results as well as single Alere i testing on nasopharyngeal aspirates. A secondary objective was assessing performance of Alere i against RT-PCR.

METHODS

Effects of implementing the 3 diagnostic algorithms were assessed in the Emergency Department of Hospital Sant Joan de Déu (Barcelona, Spain) across the 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 influenza seasons. Alere i performance against RT-PCR was determined during the 2015-2016 epidemic period.

RESULTS

Median time to result decreased when using Alere i as a confirmatory test of previous antigen detection and RT-PCR results or alone (9.7vs. 3.5/2.0 and 0.7 hours, P < 0.001) along with mean testing costs (&OV0556;87.3 vs. &OV0556;38.2 and &OV0556;25.0, P < 0.001). Results available before patient discharge from the emergency department increased from 42.7% for sequential testing by antigen detection and RT-PCR to 80.0% when Alere i was utilized as a stand-alone test. Alere i sensitivity and specificity values were 96.6% (95% confidence interval: 82.8%-99.4%) and 94.4% (95% confidence interval: 86.6%-97.8%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid Alere i testing facilitated efficient laboratory workflow near the patient during influenza epidemics while contributing cost savings when compared with serial testing by antigen and RT-PCR assays.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America: 2018 Update on Diagnosis, Treatment, Chemoprophylaxis, and Institutional Outbreak Management of Seasonal Influenzaa

These clinical practice guidelines are an update of the guidelines published by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) in 2009, prior to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. This document addresses new information regarding diagnostic testing, treatment and chemoprophylaxis with antiviral medications, and issues related to institutional outbreak management for seasonal influenza. It is intended for use by primary care clinicians, obstetricians, emergency medicine providers, hospitalists, laboratorians, and infectious disease specialists, as well as other clinicians managing patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed influenza. The guidelines consider the care of children and adults, including special populations such as pregnant and postpartum women and immunocompromised patients.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America: 2018 Update on Diagnosis, Treatment, Chemoprophylaxis, and Institutional Outbreak Management of Seasonal Influenzaa

These clinical practice guidelines are an update of the guidelines published by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) in 2009, prior to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. This document addresses new information regarding diagnostic testing, treatment and chemoprophylaxis with antiviral medications, and issues related to institutional outbreak management for seasonal influenza. It is intended for use by primary care clinicians, obstetricians, emergency medicine providers, hospitalists, laboratorians, and infectious disease specialists, as well as other clinicians managing patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed influenza. The guidelines consider the care of children and adults, including special populations such as pregnant and postpartum women and immunocompromised patients.

Comparison of Six Sample-to-Answer Influenza A/B and Respiratory Syncytial Virus Nucleic Acid Amplification Assays Using Respiratory Specimens from Children

The rapid and accurate detection of influenza A virus (FluA), influenza B virus (FluB), and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) improves patient care. Sample-to-answer (STA) platforms based on nucleic acid amplification and detection of these viruses are simple, automated, and accurate. We compared six such platforms for the detection of FluA, FluB, and RSV: Cepheid GeneXpert Xpress Flu/RSV (Xpert), Hologic Panther Fusion Flu A/B/RSV (Fusion), Cobas influenza A/B & RSV (Liat), Luminex Aries Flu A/B & RSV (Aries), BioFire FilmArray respiratory panel (RP), and Diasorin Simplexa Flu A/B & RSV (Simplexa). Nasopharyngeal (NP) swab specimens (n = 225) from children previously tested by RP were assessed on these platforms. The results were compared to those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-developed real-time reverse transcription-PCR (rRT-PCR) assay for influenza A/B viruses and RSV. Subtyping for FluA and FluB was performed for discrepant analysis where applicable. The percent sensitivities/specificities for FluA detection were 100/100 (Fusion), 98.6/99.3 (Xpert), 100/100 (Liat), 98.6/100 (Aries), 98.6/100 (Simplexa), and 100/100 (RP). The percent sensitivities/specificities for FluB detection were 100/100 (Fusion), 97.9/99.4 (Xpert), 97.9/98.3 (Liat), 93.7/99.4 (Aries), 85.4/99.4 (Simplexa), and 95.8/97.7 (RP); and those for RSV detection were 98.1/99.4 (Xpert), 98.1/99.4 (Liat), 96.3/100 (Fusion), 94.4/100 (Aries), 87/94.4 (Simplexa), and 94.4/100 (RP). The 75 strains confirmed to be FluA included 29 pH1N1, 39 H3N2, 4 sH1N1, and 3 untyped strains. The 48 strains confirmed to be FluB included 33 strains of the Yamagata lineage, 13 of the Victoria lineage, 1 of both the Yamagata and Victoria lineages, and 1 of an unknown lineage. All six STA platforms demonstrated >95% sensitivity for FluA detection, while three platforms (Fusion, Xpert, and Liat) demonstrated >95% sensitivity for FluB and RSV detection.

Are Rapid Influenza Antigen Tests Still Clinically Useful in Today's Molecular Diagnostics World?

Influenza virus infection and disease historically contribute to widespread cases of seasonal morbidity and in some cases mortality. Prompt and accurate diagnosis is crucial for optimal patient management. Rapid influenza direct antigen testing (RIDT) offers a faster turn-around-time for results but test performance (ie, sensitivity and specificity) varies widely. Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) can offer a viable alternative. The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the test performance of RIDT with NAAT. RIDT testing included the Directigen EZ Flu A+B or the Veritor System for Rapid Detection of Flu A+B. NAAT employed the SimplexaTM Flu A/B™ RSV assay. A total of 5,795 specimens collected from October to March for the 2012/2013 (n=953), 2013/2014 (n=2060) and 2014/2015 (n=2783) seasons were co-tested by RIDT and NAAT. Using NAAT as the gold standard, RIDT tests had a sensitivity range of 0 to 15.7% and a specificity of 98.2 to 100% for influenza type A. For influenza type B, RIDT tests had a sensitivity of 0 to 33.3% and a specificity of 98.9 to 100%. These findings suggest that RIDT has unacceptably low sensitivity for both influenza A and influenza B, despite high specificity. The key advantage of RIDT in previous years (faster turnaround time) has been challenged by newer NAAT technology that provides results in a turn-around-time comparable to RIDT, but with superior test performance.

Multicenter evaluation of the Alere™ i influenza A&B assay using respiratory specimens collected in viral transport media

Rapid and accurate detection of influenza virus is critical for proper patient management. The Alere™ i Influenza A&B assay is an isothermal nucleic acid amplification test capable of detecting influenza A and B viruses directly from respiratory specimens. In this multicenter clinical trial conducted in the US, we evaluated the clinical performance of the Alere™ i Influenza A&B assay against that of the Prodesse ProFlu+ assay. A total of 1243 fresh, leftover nasal or nasopharyngeal swabs eluted in viral transport medium were tested by both assays. Sensitivity and specificity of the Alere™ i Influenza A&B assay were 97.8% (95% CI 94.6-99.2) and 96.6% (95% CI 95.2-97.5) for influenza A and 92.9% (95% CI 85.5-96.9) and 98.3% (95% CI 97.4-98.0) for influenza B. The Alere™ i Influenza A&B assay is an ideal molecular assay for influenza virus detection due to its high sensitivity and specificity with minimal hands-on and turn-around-time.

Profile of the Alere i Influenza A & B assay: a pioneering molecular point-of-care test

INTRODUCTION

The Alere i Influenza A & B assay incorporates the Nicking Enzyme Amplification Reaction technique on the Alere i instrument to detect and differentiate influenza virus (Flu) A and B nucleic acids in specific specimens. Areas covered: The Alere i Influenza A & B assay was cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for use with nasal swabs (NS) and nasopharyngeal swabs, either directly or in viral transport medium. Notably, direct use on NS was the first ever CLIA-waived nucleic acid-based test. Previously published evaluations have reported sensitivities and specificities of 55.2-100% and 62.5-100% for Flu A and 45.2-100% and 53.6-100% for Flu B, respectively. Expert commentary: The Alere i Influenza A & B assay provides a rapid and simple platform for detection and differentiation of Flu A and B. Efforts are expected to further improve sensitivity and user-friendliness for effective and widespread use in the true point-of-care setting.

Molecular Microbiology

Background

Nucleic acid (NA) amplification techniques are now commonly used to diagnose and manage patients with infectious diseases. The growth in the number of Food and Drug Administration–approved test kits and analyte-specific reagents has facilitated the use of this technology in clinical laboratories. Technological advances in NA amplification techniques, automation, NA sequencing, and multiplex analysis have reinvigorated the field and created new opportunities for growth. Simple, sample-in, answer-out molecular test systems are now widely available that can be deployed in a variety of laboratory and clinical settings. Molecular microbiology remains the leading area in molecular pathology in terms of both the numbers of tests performed and clinical relevance. NA-based tests have reduced the dependency of the clinical microbiology laboratory on more traditional antigen detection and culture methods and created new opportunities for the laboratory to impact patient care.

Content

This chapter reviews NA testing as it applies to specific pathogens or infectious disease syndromes, with a focus on those diseases for which NA testing is now considered the standard of care and highlights the unique challenges and opportunities that these tests present for clinical laboratories.

Evaluation of the molecular Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV assay vs. Alere i Influenza A & B assay for rapid detection of influenza viruses

A new FDA-approved Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV assay has been released for rapid influenza virus detection. We collected 134 nasopharyngeal specimens to compare the diagnostic performance of the Xpert assay and the Alere i Influenza A & B assay for influenza A and B virus detection. The Xpert assay demonstrated 100% and 96.3% sensitivity to influenza A and influenza B virus respectively. Its specificity was 100% for both viruses. The Alere i assay demonstrated slightly lower sensitivity but similar specificity to the Xpert Xpress assay. Although the Xpert assay (30 min) required longer processing time than the Alere assay (15 min), the handling procedure of the Alere assay was more complicated than the Xpert assay. As the GenXpert system has higher throughput than the Alere system, it is more suitable for hospital clinical laboratories. Overall, the new Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV assay is a reliable and useful tool for rapid influenza detection.

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

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.

Respiratory RNA Viruses

Acute upper and lower respiratory infections are a major public health problem and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. At greatest risk are young children, the elderly, the chronically ill, and those with suppressed or compromised immune systems. Viruses are the predominant cause of respiratory tract illnesses and include RNA viruses such as respiratory syncytial virus, influenza virus, parainfluenza virus, metapneumovirus, rhinovirus, and coronavirus. Laboratory testing is required for a reliable diagnosis of viral respiratory infections, as a clinical diagnosis can be difficult since signs and symptoms are often overlapping and not specific for any one virus. Recent advances in technology have resulted in the development of newer diagnostic assays that offer great promise for rapid and accurate detection of respiratory viral infections. This chapter emphasizes the fundamental characteristics and clinical importance of the various RNA viruses that cause upper and lower respiratory tract diseases in the immunocompromised host. It highlights the laboratory methods that can be used to make a rapid and definitive diagnosis for the greatest impact on the care and management of ill patients, and the prevention and control of hospital-acquired infections and community outbreaks.

Characterization and circulation of seasonal influenza viruses in Madrid, 2010-2016

Influenza virus infection is a major health care burden and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The 2009 influenza pandemic highlighted the importance of influenza surveillance. The objective of this study was to assess the epidemiology and activity of influenza A and B viruses in adults and children in the post-pandemic period with a special focus on the pediatric population. We performed a retrospective descriptive study involving adults and children with influenza-like illness at the Clinico San Carlos Hospital (Madrid, Spain) over six influenza seasons, between August 2010 and April 2016. Respiratory specimens were collected from 3131 patients and routinely processed for influenza diagnosis. Epidemiological analysis was performed in terms of gender, age, and seasonal distribution. Globally, Influenza A and B viruses were detected in the respiratory specimens of 696 (22.2%) of the 3131 studied population. Among all influenza positive specimens, 142 (20.4%) were influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, 61 (8.8%) were influenza A(H3N2), 321 (46.1%) were untypeable influenza A viruses and 166 (23.9%) were influenza B. Co-infection by both influenza A and B viruses was detected in six patients (0.9%). Meanwhile, co-infection with other non-influenza respiratory viruses was identified in 5 children and 20 adults. Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus activity has been significantly high since the 2009 pandemic and has gradually replaced the previously circulating seasonal influenza A(H1N1) virus. Moreover, influenza A(H3N2) virus activity remained at low levels during the last winter season while influenza B virus isolates increased significantly over the past 2 years.

Performance of the Alere™ i Influenza A&B and the Cepheid Xpert® Flu/RSV XC assays

Aim: To evaluate the Alere™ i Influenza A&B assay and the Xpert® Flu/RSV XC assay using nasopharyngeal aspirates and swabs not provided in the commercial kits. Methods: Specimens were tested with the Alere i Influenza A&B and the Xpert Flu/RSV XC assays and compared with reference methods. Results: Compared with the comparator methods and following discordant analysis, the sensitivity of the i Influenza A&B assay was 63.3% for influenza A and 83.3% for influenza B. For the Xpert Flu/RSV XC assay, sensitivity was 100% for influenza A and B and respiratory syncytial virus. The specificity for all test systems was 100%. Conclusion: The Xpert Flu/RSV XC assay out-performed the Alere i Influenza A&B assay in all diagnostic characteristics evaluated.

Diagnostic accuracy and cost analysis of the Alere™ i Influenza A&B near-patient test using throat swabs

BACKGROUND

Clinical diagnostic sensitivity alone is inadequate in the diagnosis of influenza. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing is sensitive but the inherent delays in result availability potentially prolong time to isolation and treatment. Until recently no near-patient test (NPT) has demonstrated adequate sensitivity for routine clinical use.

AIM

To evaluate diagnostic accuracy, time to result availability, clinical impact, and cost consequences of Alere™ i Influenza A&B NPT (Alere Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) using off-label throat swabs.

METHODS

Prospective, multi-centre [four UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals], diagnostic accuracy cohort study with cost modelling. Throat swab samples from suspected influenza patients were tested for influenza using the reference standard of PCR; a second throat swab was tested using NPT.

FINDINGS

A total of 827 participants were recruited; 589 were suitable for analysis: sensitivity was 75.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 67.0-84.6]; specificity was 96.8% (95% CI: 95.2-98.3). Sensitivity varied between Sheffield (Northern General Hospital: 82.1%; Royal Hallamshire Hospital: 83.3%) and other sites (Doncaster Royal Infirmary: 71.4%; Newcastle's Royal Victoria Infirmary: 50.0%) whereas specificity was high (92-100%). Positive predictive value (PPV) was 81.2% (95% CI: 72.9-89.5) with negative predictive value 95.6% (95% CI: 93.9-97.4) with observed prevalence of 15.4%. Median time to result for PCR was 1.1 days (on-site laboratories) and 5.2 days (remote laboratories). Isolation findings: 75% influenza positive not isolated; 69% of isolated participants did not have influenza. For a cohort of 1000 participants, annual estimated non-diagnostic cost savings with NPT are £215,040.

CONCLUSION

This first prospective study of the Alere i NPT using throat swabs demonstrates high specificity, high PPV during seasonal epidemics, and rapid result availability which could lead to substantial cost savings.

Comparison of the Alere i and BD Veritor Assays for the Rapid Detection of Influenza A and B Viruses

BACKGROUND

The use of point-of care testing (POCT) in patient management decisions is becoming increasingly common. Our goal was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of 2 commercially available rapid POCT devices for influenza viruses A and B: the Alere™ i Instrument (Alere, Scarborough) and the BD Veritor™ System (BD Diagnostics).

METHODS

Paired nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from patients (18-71 years) presenting with influenza-like symptoms at 3 outpatient clinics. A total of 65 samples were obtained. The Alere i and BD Veritor were performed according to the manufacturers' instructions. Discordant results were resolved using real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR).

RESULTS

In a head-to-head comparison involving symptomatic adult patients visiting outpatient clinics during the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 influenza seasons, the Alere i and BD Veritor had 90.63% agreement in the detection of influenza A virus and a statistically significant observed κ coefficient of 0.754 (P <0.0001). Discordant results between the Alere i and BD Veritor were further investigated using RT-PCR, showing that the BD Veritor missed 5 positive influenza A virus results (false negatives) and detected 1 false positive, while the Alere i results agreed with all RT-PCR results. There were no discordant results between the Alere i and BD Veritor in the detection of influenza B virus.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that the Alere i has higher sensitivity and specificity than the BD Veritor in the detection of influenza A virus. Both assays showed equal performance in the detection of influenza B virus.

Rapid Molecular Detection and Differentiation of Influenza Viruses A and B

Influenza is a contagious respiratory illness caused by influenza viruses A and B in humans and causes a significant amount of morbidity and mortality every year. The Influenza A and B assay was the first CLIA-waived molecular rapid flu test available. The Influenza A and B test works by employing isothermal amplification with influenza-specific primers followed by target detection with molecular beacon probes. Here, the performance of the Influenza A and B assay on frozen, archived nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens stored in viral transport medium (VTM) were compared to a respiratory panel assay. The performance of the Influenza A and B assay was evaluated by comparing the results to the respiratory panel reference method. The sensitivity for total influenza virus A was 67.5% (95% CI (CI), 56.6-78.5) and the specificity was 86.9% (CI, 71.0-100). For influenza virus B testing, the sensitivity and specificity were 90.2% (CI, 68.5-100) and 98.8% (CI, 68.5-100), respectively. This system has the advantage of a significantly shorter test time than any other currently available molecular assay and the simple, pipette-free procedure runs on a fully integrated, closed, small-footprint system. Overall, the Influenza A and B assay evaluated in this study has the potential to serve as a point-of-care rapid influenza diagnostic test.

Evaluation of Alere i RSV for Rapid Detection of Respiratory Syncytial Virus in Children Hospitalized with Acute Respiratory Tract Infection

Alere i RSV is a novel rapid test which applies a nicking enzyme amplification reaction to detect respiratory syncytial virus in point-of-care settings. In this study, we evaluated the Alere i RSV assay by using frozen nasopharyngeal swab samples that were collected in viral transport medium from children hospitalized with acute respiratory tract infection during the 2015-2016 winter season. Alere i RSV assay results were compared to those for Altona RealStar RSV real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR). We found that the overall sensitivity and specificity of the Alere i RSV test was 100% (95% confidence intervals [CI], 93% to 100%) and 97% (95% CI, 89% to 100%), respectively. Positive samples were identified within 5 to 7 min from sample collection. Overall, the Alere i RSV test performed well compared to the RT-PCR assay and has the potential to facilitate the detection of RSV in point-of-care settings.

Contribution of a rapid influenza diagnostic test to manage hospitalized patients with suspected influenza

AIM

To evaluate the performances of the Alere i influenza A&B test and to appraise its contribution to patient management.

METHODS

In total, 267 samples were tested. Influenza A and B PCR was performed as the reference. For each positive result, the supervising physician was contacted to collect data regarding patient management.

FINDINGS

The overall sensitivity and specificity of the Alere i were 91.4% and 97.6% for influenza A and 54.5% and 98.8% for influenza B, respectively. More specifically, when used in the emergency room (ER), the test helped avoid 10.7% of hospitalizations, 46.4% of antibiotic prescriptions and 42.9% of additional investigations for positive patients. The test was also helpful in instituting the prescription of oseltamivir and patient isolation.

CONCLUSION

Alere i influenza A&B is a rapid, sensitive and specific diagnostic test for influenza A. Sensitivity for influenza B was poor. Its usefulness was more important when patients were still in the ER.

Pathology Consultation on Influenza Diagnostics

OBJECTIVES

To describe the strengths and limitations of the available influenza diagnostics, with a focus on rapid antigen detection assays and nucleic acid detection assays.

METHODS

A case-based presentation is used to illustrate the potential limitations of rapid antigen detection assays for influenza.

RESULTS

Influenza is a seasonal illness; estimates attribute influenza to approximately 200,000 hospitalizations and 41,000 deaths in the United States annually. Antigen detection assays for influenza are rapid and convenient, and thus are widely used in a variety of health care settings, even though the sensitivity of these assays may be suboptimal. The United States Food and Drug Administration has recently created new guidelines intended to improve the oversight and performance characteristics of influenza antigen detection assays. Molecular assays, although more costly and complex, are more sensitive and may be designed to simultaneously detect multiple respiratory pathogens within a single assay.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic assays for influenza can vary greatly with regards to analytical performance characteristics, complexity, turnaround time and cost. This can have important patient care and infection prevention implications.

Evaluation of the Alere i Influenza A&B assay for rapid identification of influenza A and influenza B viruses

The Alere i Influenza A&B assay is a novel isothermal nucleic acid amplification assay capable of detecting and differentiating influenza A and B viruses in approximately 15 min with minimal hands-on time. This study was conducted in order to assess the performance of the Alere i Influenza A&B assay compared to molecular techniques, considered to be gold standard methods, to evaluate the results. A total of 119 nasopharyngeal swabs collected from inpatients with influenza-like illness were included in the study using both archived and prospectively collected samples from adults and children. Prospectively collected samples were also compared to the Alere BinaxNOW® Influenza A & B Card. The overall sensitivity for detection of influenza A and B viruses compared to those of molecular techniques were 65.96 % and 53.33 % respectively, while the specificity was 98.51 % and 95.96 %. Compared to the Alere BinaxNOW® Influenza A & B Card, the Alere i assay is considerably more sensitive for detection of influenza A and B viruses, although both tests demonstrated excellent specificity for diagnosis of influenza viruses.

Sample-to-result molecular infectious disease assays: clinical implications, limitations and potential

Molecular infectious disease diagnostic tests have undergone major advances in the past decade and will continue to rapidly evolve. Assays have become extraordinarily simple to perform, eliminating the need for pre-analytic sample preparation and post-amplification analysis. This allows these tests to be performed in settings without sophisticated expertise in molecular biology, including locations with limited resources. Additionally, the sensitivity and specificity of these assays is superb and many offer extremely fast turn-around times. These tests have major impacts on patient care, but also have some limitations.

Respiratory Infections

The majority of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are community acquired and are the single most common cause of physician office visits and among the most common causes of hospitalizations. The morbidity and mortality associated with RTIs are significant and the financial and social burden high due to lost time at work and school. The scope of clinical symptoms can significantly overlap among the respiratory pathogens, and the severity of disease can vary depending on patient age, underlying disease, and immune status, thereby leading to inaccurate presumptions about disease etiology. The rapid and accurate diagnosis of the causative agent of RTIs improves patient care, reduces morbidity and mortality, promotes effective hospital bed utilization and antibiotic stewardship, and reduces length of stay. This chapter focuses on the clinical utility, advantages, and disadvantages of viral and bacterial tests cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and new promising technologies for the detection of bacterial agents of pneumonia currently in development or in US FDA clinical trials are briefly reviewed.

Molecular diagnosis of respiratory viruses

The increasing availability of nucleic acid amplification tests since the 1980s has revolutionised our understanding of the pathogenesis, epidemiology, clinical and laboratory aspects of known and novel viral respiratory pathogens. High-throughput, multiplex polymerase chain reaction is the most commonly used qualitative detection method, but utilisation of newer techniques such as next-generation sequencing will become more common following significant cost reductions. Rapid and readily accessible isothermal amplification platforms have also allowed molecular diagnostics to be used in a ‘point-of-care’ format. This review focuses on the current applications and limitations of molecular diagnosis for respiratory viruses.

Performance of the Cobas(®) Influenza A/B Assay for Rapid Pcr-Based Detection of Influenza Compared to Prodesse ProFlu+ and Viral Culture

Rapid and accurate diagnosis of influenza is important for patient management and infection control. We determined the performance of the cobas^® Influenza A/B assay, a rapid automated nucleic acid assay performed on the cobas^® Liat System for qualitative detection of influenza A and influenza B from nasopharyngeal (NP) swab specimens. Retrospective frozen and prospectively collected NP swabs from patients with signs and symptoms of influenza collected in universal transport medium (UTM) were tested at multiple sites including CLIA-waived sites using the cobas® Influenza A/B assay. Results were compared to the Prodesse Pro-Flu+ assay and to viral culture. Compared to the Prodesse ProFlu+ Assay, sensitivities of the cobas^® Influenza A/B assay for influenza A and B were 97.7 and 98.6%, respectively; specificity was 99.2 and 99.4%. Compared to viral culture, the cobas^® Influenza A/B assay showed sensitivities of 97.5 and 96.9% for influenza virus A and B, respectively; specificities were 97.9% for both viruses. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)/sequencing showed that the majority of viral culture negative but cobas^® Influenza A/B positive results were true positive results, indicating that the cobas^® Influenza A/B assay has higher sensitivity compared to viral culture.

In conclusion, the excellent accuracy, rapid time to result, and remarkable ease of use make the cobas^® Influenza A/B nucleic acid assay for use on the cobas^® Liat System a highly suitable point-of-care solution for the management of patients with suspected influenza A and B infection.

Prospective evaluation of the Alere i Influenza A&B nucleic acid amplification versus Xpert Flu/RSV

The rapid and accurate detection of influenza virus in respiratory specimens is required for optimal management of patients with acute respiratory infections. Because of the variability of the symptoms and the numerous other causes of influenza-like illness, the diagnosis of influenza cannot be made on the basis of clinical criteria alone. Thus, rapid influenza diagnostic tests have been developed such as the Alere i Influenza A&B isothermal nucleic acid assay. We prospectively evaluated the performance of the Alere i Influenza A&B assay in comparison with our routine Xpert Flu/RSV assay. Positive samples were subtyped according to the protocol from the National Influenza Center (Paris, France). A total of 96 respiratory nasal swab samples were analyzed: with both methods, 38 were positive and 56 were negative. Samples were prospectively collected from January 20 to April 8, 2015, from patient (86 adult and 10 pediatric patients) presenting with an influenza-like illness through the French influenza season. In comparison with the Xpert Flu/RSV assay, the overall sensitivity and specificity of the Alere i Influenza A&B assay were 95% and 100%, respectively. Our results indicate that the Alere i Influenza A&B assay has a good overall analytical performance and a high degree of concordance with the PCR-based Xpert Flu/RSV assay. The Alere i Influenza A&B isothermal nucleic acid amplification test is a powerful tool for influenza detection due to its high sensitivity and specificity as well as its ability to generate results within 15min.

Performance of a Novel Point-of-Care Molecular Assay for Detection of Influenza A and B Viruses and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (Enigma MiniLab) in Children with Acute Respiratory Infection

The performance of the Enigma MiniLab assay for influenza A and B viruses and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) was compared to a centralized laboratory respiratory virus panel. The positive and negative percent agreement for influenza A virus, influenza B virus, and RSV were 79.2% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 57.8 to 92.9%) and 99.4% (95% CI, 98.4 to 99.9), 100% (95% CI, 47.8 to 100%) and 100% (95% CI, 99.3 to 100%), 98.5% (95% CI, 94.6 to 99.8%) and 94.5% (95% CI, 91.9 to 96.4%), respectively.

The East Jakarta Project: surveillance for highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) and seasonal influenza viruses in patients seeking care for respiratory disease, Jakarta, Indonesia, October 2011-September 2012

Indonesia has reported the most human infections with highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A(H5N1) virus worldwide. We implemented enhanced surveillance in four outpatient clinics and six hospitals for HPAI H5N1 and seasonal influenza viruses in East Jakarta district to assess the public health impact of influenza in Indonesia. Epidemiological and clinical data were collected from outpatients with influenza-like illness (ILI) and hospitalized patients with severe acute respiratory infection (SARI); respiratory specimens were obtained for influenza testing by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. During October 2011-September 2012, 1131/3278 specimens from ILI cases (34·5%) and 276/1787 specimens from SARI cases (15·4%) tested positive for seasonal influenza viruses. The prevalence of influenza virus infections was highest during December-May and the proportion testing positive was 76% for ILI and 36% for SARI during their respective weeks of peak activity. No HPAI H5N1 virus infections were identified, including hundreds of ILI and SARI patients with recent poultry exposures, whereas seasonal influenza was an important contributor to acute respiratory disease in East Jakarta. Overall, 668 (47%) of influenza viruses were influenza B, 384 (27%) were A(H1N1)pdm09, and 359 (25%) were H3. While additional data over multiple years are needed, our findings suggest that seasonal influenza prevention efforts, including influenza vaccination, should target the months preceding the rainy season.

Diagnostic performance of near-patient testing for influenza

•

Rapid isothermal NAT for influenza reveals improved sensitivity and specificity compared to direct antigen testing.

•

Simple sample processing and short turn-around time render isothermal NAT suitable for sequential near-patient testing.

•

The turn-around time advantage is lost by the single-test format precluding sample cohorting and testing of larger series.

Background

Rapid diagnosis of influenza is important for controlling outbreaks and starting antiviral therapy. Direct antigen detection (DAD) is rapid, but lacks sensitivity, whereas nucleic acid amplification testing (NAT) is more sensitive, but also more time-consuming.

Objectives

To evaluate the performance of a rapid isothermal NAT and two DADs.

Study design

During February–May 2014, we tested 211 consecutive patients with influenza-like illness using a commercial isothermal NAT (Alere™ Influenza A&B) as well as the DAD Sofia^® Influenza A + B and BinaxNOW^® Influenza A&B for detection of influenza-A and -B virus. RespiFinder-22^® a commercial multiplex NAT served as reference test. Serial 10-fold dilutions of influenza-A and -B cell culture supernatants were examined. Another 225 patient samples were tested during December 2014–February 2015.

Results

Compared to RespiFinder-22^®, the isothermal NAT Alere™ Influenza A&B, and the DAD Sofia^® Influenza A + B and BinaxNOW^® Influenza A&B had sensitivities of 77.8%, 59.3% and 29.6%, and specificities of 99.5%, 98.9% and 100%, respectively, for the first 211 patient samples. Alere™ Influenza A&B showed 85.7% sensitivity and 100% specificity in the second cohort. Isothermal NAT was 10-100-fold more sensitive compared to DAD for influenza virus culture supernatants with a lower limit of detection of 5000–50,000 copies/mL. The average turn-around time (TAT) of isothermal NAT and DADs was 15 min, but increased to 110 min for Alere™ Influenza A&B, 30 min for BinaxNOW^® Influenza A&B, and 45 min for Sofia^® Influenza A + B, when analyzing batches of 6 samples.

Conclusion

Simple sample processing and a TAT of 15 min render isothermal NAT Alere™ Influenza A&B suitable for sequential near-patient testing, but the TAT advantage is lost when testing of larger series.

Detection of influenza A and B with the Alere ™ i Influenza A & B: a novel isothermal nucleic acid amplification assay

Background

Rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) have an important role in clinical decision-making; however, the performances of currently available assays vary widely.

Objectives

We evaluated the performance of the Alere™ i Influenza A&B (Alere™ iNAT), a rapid isothermal nucleic acid amplification assay that has recently received FDA clearance, for the detection of influenza A and B viruses during the Australian influenza season of 2013. Results were compared to two other RIDTs tested in parallel; Quidel Sofia® Influenza A+B fluorescent immunoassay (FIA) and Alere™ BinaxNOW® Influenza A & B immunochromatographic (ICT) assay.

Methods

A total of 202 paired nasopharyngeal swabs collected from patients ≥16 years old with an influenza-like illness (ILI) were eluted in 2 ml of universal transport medium (UTM) that was used to perform all three RIDTs in parallel. Reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was used as the reference standard.

Results

Compared to RT-PCR, Alere™ iNAT detected 77·8% influenza A positive samples versus 71·4% and 44·4% for the Quidel Sofia® Influenza A+B FIA and BinaxNOW® Influenza A & B ICT assay, respectively. For influenza B, Alere™ iNAT detected 75% of those positive by RT-PCR, versus 33·3% and 25·0% for Sofia® and BinaxNOW®, respectively. The specificity of Alere™ iNAT was 100% for influenza A and 99% for influenza B.

Conclusions

Alere™ i Influenza A&B is a promising new rapid influenza diagnostic assay with potential point-of-care applications.

Performance of the molecular Alere I influenza A&B test compared to that of the xpert flu A/B assay

Data on the performance of rapid molecular point-of-care use platforms for diagnosis of influenza are lacking. We validated nasopharyngeal (NP) flocked specimens in universal transport medium (UTM) and evaluated the clinical sensitivity and specificity of the Alere i influenza A&B test compared to those of the Xpert flu A/B assay. The Alere i influenza A&B test had an overall sensitivity and specificity of 93.8% and 62.5% for influenza A, respectively, and of 91.8% and 53.6% for influenza B, respectively. The poor specificity was due to influenza virus samples determined positive for both type A and B.