Detection of influenza A and B viruses with the Sofia analyzer: a novel, rapid immunofluorescence-based in vitro diagnostic device

The Influence of Rapid Influenza Diagnostic Testing on Clinician Decision-Making for Patients With Acute Respiratory Infection in Urgent Care

BACKGROUND

The potential benefits of using rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) in urgent care facilities for clinical care and prescribing practices are understudied. We compared antiviral and antibiotic prescribing, imaging, and laboratory ordering in clinical encounters with and without RIDT results.

METHODS

We compared patients with acute respiratory infection (ARI) symptoms who received an RIDT and patients who did not at 2 urgent care facilities. Primary analysis using 1-to-1 exact matching resulted in 1145 matched pairs to which McNemar 2 × 2 tests were used to assess the association between the likelihood of prescribing, imaging/laboratory ordering, and RIDT use. Secondary analysis compared the same outcomes using logistic regression among the RIDT-tested population between participants who tested negative (RIDT(-)) and positive (RIDT(+)).

RESULTS

Primary analysis revealed that compared to the non-RIDT-tested population, RIDT(+) patients were more likely to be prescribed antivirals (OR, 10.23; 95% CI, 5.78-19.72) and less likely to be prescribed antibiotics (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, .08-.27). Comparing RIDT-tested to non-RIDT-tested participants, RIDT use increased antiviral prescribing odds (OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.25-4.26) and reduced antibiotic prescribing odds (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, .43-.63). Secondary analysis identified increased odds of prescribing antivirals (OR, 28.21; 95% CI, 18.15-43.86) and decreased odds of prescribing antibiotics (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, .13-.30) for RIDT(+) participants compared with RIDT(-).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of RIDTs in patients presenting with ARI symptoms influences clinician diagnostic and treatment decision-making, which could lead to improved patient outcomes, population-level reductions in influenza burden, and a decreased threat of antibiotic resistance.

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.

Point-of-Care Testing in Microbiology

Point-of-care (POC) or near patient testing for infectious diseases is a rapidly expanding space that is part of an ongoing effort to bring care closer to the patient. Traditional POC tests were known for their limited utility, but advances in technology have seen significant improvements in performance of these assays. The increasing promise of these tests is also coupled with their increasing complexity, which requires the oversight of qualified laboratory-trained personnel.

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.

Clinical usefulness of a rapid molecular assay, ID NOW™ influenza A & B 2, in adults

INTRODUCTION

ID NOW™ Influenza A & B 2 (ID NOW 2) is a rapid molecular assay that combines two characteristics, namely the rapidness of rapid antigen detection test (RADT) and the high sensitivity of molecular assay.

METHODS

The clinical performance of ID NOW 2 compared with real-time RT-PCR was evaluated in adults.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of ID NOW 2 over multiple seasons from 2016/2017 to 2019/2020 was 97.3% (95% CI: 90.7-99.7) for Type A, 100% (95% CI: 81.9-100) for Type B, and 97.8% (95% CI: 92.2-99.7) for influenza (Type A + Type B), and it was significantly higher than the sensitivity of RADT, which was 80.0% (95% CI: 69.2-88.4) for Type A, 73.3% (95% CI: 44.9-92.2) for Type B, and 78.9% (95% CI: 69.0-86.8) for influenza. The sensitivity of RADT tended to be lower in patients in the particularly early period, within 12 h from disease onset; however, the sensitivity of ID NOW 2 remained high, increasing the difference between the sensitivity of RADT and ID NOW 2. The viral loads were low within 12 h from onset, and it was considered this affected the sensitivity of RADT due to its low analytical sensitivity. The specificity of ID NOW 2 was 98% or greater in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Since ID NOW 2 has a high sensitivity and specificity in adults, it is anticipated to be used in clinical practice, particularly in patients who require early and accurate diagnosis.

Point-of-Care Testing in Microbiology: A Mechanism for Improving Patient Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, demands for improved health and quality of life conflict with the realities of delivering healthcare in an environment of higher expenditures, adherence to test utilization, and patient-centered experience. Patient-centered care is commonly identified as a goal of healthcare delivery, and yet healthcare systems struggle with delivery of care to patients, often failing to identify the seriously ill and capitalize on the predictive qualities of diagnostic testing. Point-of-care (POC) testing provides access to rapid diagnosis and predictive value key to realizing patient outcomes. An evaluation of cost-effective models and the clinical impact of POC testing for clinical microbiology is needed.

CONTENT

Accurate and rapid diagnostics have the potential to affect healthcare decisions to a degree well out of proportion to their cost. Contemporary healthcare models increasingly view POC testing as a mechanism for efficient deployment of healthcare. POC testing can deliver rapid diagnosis in environments where testing results can be used to direct management during patient visits and in areas where centralized laboratory testing may limit access to care. Nucleic acid assays, designed for POC testing, can match, or exceed, the sensitivity of conventional laboratory-based testing, eliminating the need for confirmation testing. Here, the goals of POC testing for microbiology, applications, and technologies, as well as outcomes and value propositions, are discussed.

SUMMARY

The combination of rapid reporting, an increasing array of organisms capable of causing disease, actionable resulting, and improved patient outcomes is key in the evolution of POC testing in clinical microbiology.

Evaluation of a Commercial Colloidal Gold Assay for Detection of Influenza A and B Virus in Children's Respiratory Specimens

Objective: To evaluate the clinical diagnostic value of colloidal gold assay for detection of influenza A and B virus. Methods: Results were compared for colloidal gold assay for influenza antigen detection and real-time RT-PCR for RNA detection. Results: By performing the colloidal gold assay, the positive rate was 25.67% (105/409) for influenza A virus and 8.56% (35/409) for influenza B virus. While tested by real-time RT-PCR, 107(26.2%) were positive for influenza A virus and 35(8.6%) for influenza B virus. Using real-time RT-PCR as the gold standard, the sensitivity and specificity of the colloidal gold assay were 84.1% and 95.0%, respectively, for influenza A virus and 85.7% and 98.7% for influenza B virus. Conclusion: This colloidal gold assay may be one of the viable tools for the rapid screening for influenza viruses in an outpatient clinical practice.

High performance of rapid influenza diagnostic test and variable effectiveness of influenza vaccines in Mexico

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the performance of rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDT) and influenza vaccines' effectiveness (VE) during an outbreak setting.

METHODS

We compared the performance of a RIDT with RT-PCR for influenza virus detection in influenza-like illness (ILI) patients enrolled during the 2016/17 season in Mexico City. Using the test-negative design, we estimated influenza VE in all participants and stratified by age, virus subtype, and vaccine type (trivalent vs quadrivalent inactivated vaccines). The protective value of some clinical variables was evaluated by regression analyses.

RESULTS

We enrolled 592 patients. RT-PCR detected 93 cases of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, 55 of AH3N2, 141 of B, and 13 A/B virus infections. RIDT showed 90.7% sensitivity and 95.7% specificity for influenza A virus detection, and 91.5% sensitivity and 95.3% specificity for influenza B virus detection. Overall VE was 33.2% (95% CI: 3.0-54.0; p = 0.02) against any laboratory-confirmed influenza infection. VE estimates against influenza B were higher for the quadrivalent vaccine. Immunization and occupational exposure were protective factors against influenza.

CONCLUSIONS

The RIDT was useful to detect influenza cases during an outbreak setting. Effectiveness of 2016/17 influenza vaccines administered in Mexico was low but significant. Our data should be considered for future local epidemiological policies.

Detection and characterization of type B influenza virus from influenza-like illness cases during the 2017-2018 winter influenza season in Beijing, China

In the winter of 2017-2018, there was significant influenza activity in China, resulting in unprecedented usage of influenza rapid antigen tests (IRAT) and neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs). The aim of this study was to characterize the most prevalent influenza virus type in a clinical setting with respect to diagnosis and concomitant NAI treatment. From Dec 2017 to Jan 2018, 3257 patients with influenza-like illness (ILI) were screened using IRAT. We summarized and compared the results with the last influenza season. Subtyping of influenza B viruses and identification of NAI drug resistance mutations were carried out by sequencing the HA and NA genes and aligning these with genetic isotypes. The performance of IRAT and RT-PCR was compared. Screening results indicated that influenza B virus was the leading cause of this influenza epidemic, with children being more susceptible to infection than adults. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that the prevailing influenza B virus belonged to the Yamagata lineage and were genetically similar to strains isolated from North America in the same influenza season. Cross-continental spread of influenza/B/Yamagata occurred. NAI resistance mutations were not identified in the 18 samples analyzed. The current antiviral protocol was still effective for influenza B control. RT-PCR positivity was significantly higher than that of IRAT (P = 0.004). IRAT and RT-PCR had a consistency rate of 86.9%, with the consistency rates of the positive and negative cases being 54.3% and 97.3%, respectively. Clinicians should be alert to the possibility of obtaining false negative results when using IRAT, and RT-PCR is recommended to improve the accuracy of pathogen detection.

Inorganic Complexes and Metal-Based Nanomaterials for Infectious Disease Diagnostics

Infectious diseases claim millions of lives each year. Robust and accurate diagnostics are essential tools for identifying those who are at risk and in need of treatment in low-resource settings. Inorganic complexes and metal-based nanomaterials continue to drive the development of diagnostic platforms and strategies that enable infectious disease detection in low-resource settings. In this review, we highlight works from the past 20 years in which inorganic chemistry and nanotechnology were implemented in each of the core components that make up a diagnostic test. First, we present how inorganic biomarkers and their properties are leveraged for infectious disease detection. In the following section, we detail metal-based technologies that have been employed for sample preparation and biomarker isolation from sample matrices. We then describe how inorganic- and nanomaterial-based probes have been utilized in point-of-care diagnostics for signal generation. The following section discusses instrumentation for signal readout in resource-limited settings. Next, we highlight the detection of nucleic acids at the point of care as an emerging application of inorganic chemistry. Lastly, we consider the challenges that remain for translation of the aforementioned diagnostic platforms to low-resource settings.

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.

Point-of-care influenza testing does not significantly shorten time to disposition among patients with an influenza-like illness

INTRODUCTION

Availability of anti-viral agents and need to isolate infected patients increases the need to confirm the diagnosis of influenza before determining patient disposition.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine if time-to-disposition (TTD) was shorter among patients tested for influenza using an Emergency Department (ED) Point-of-care (POC) test compared to core laboratory (lab) test and to determine difference in antibiotic use between groups.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled a convenience sample of ED patients for whom influenza testing was ordered during influenza season 2017. Participants were randomized to POC or lab. Data collected included demographics, chief complaint, influenza test results, turnaround time (TAT), whether antibiotics were given, and TTD. Descriptive statistics were calculated and group comparisons conducted using chi squared and Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.

RESULTS

Study population included 100 in the POC group and 97 in the lab group. Demographics were similar between POC and lab participants. More flu positive results were reported in the POC group compared to the lab group (51.0% vs. 33.0% p = 0.01). The median TTD was 146.5 min (IQR 98.5) for POC group and 165.5 min (IQR 127) for lab group (p = 0.26). The median TAT was 30.5 min (IQR 7.5) for POC group and 106.0 min (IQR 55) for core lab group (p = 0.001). Antibiotics were given to 14.0% of POC participants and 14.4% of lab participants (p = 0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

Although use of a POC influenza test provided more rapid TAT than use of a core lab test, there was no significant difference in TTD or antibiotic use between groups.

Usefulness of Sofia Pneumococcal FIA® test in comparison with BinaxNOW® Pneumococcal test in urine samples for the diagnosis of pneumococcal pneumonia

The Sofia Pneumococcal FIA® test is a recently introduced immunofluorescent assay automatically read aimed to detect Streptococcus pneumoniae antigen in urine. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of SofiaFIA® urinary antigen test (UAT) in comparison with classical immunochromatographic BinaxNOW® test for the diagnosis of pneumococcal pneumonia (PP). Observational study was conducted in the Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron from December 2015 to August 2016. Consecutive adult patients diagnosed of pneumonia and admitted to the emergency department in whom UAT was requested were prospectively enrolled. Paired pneumococcal UAT was performed (BinaxNOW® and SofiaFIA®) in urine samples. To assess the performance of both tests, patients were categorized into proven PP (isolation of S. pneumoniae in sterile fluid) or probable PP (isolation of S. pneumoniae in respiratory secretion). Sensitivity, specificity, and concordance were calculated. A total of 219 patients with pneumonia were enrolled, of whom 14% had a proven or probable PP, 22% a non-pneumococcal etiology, and 64% an unidentified pathogen. Concordance between tests was good (κ = 0.81). Sensitivity of SofiaFIA® and BinaxNOW® UAT was 78.6 and 50% for proven PP (p = 0.124), and 74.2 and 58% for proven/probable PP (p = 0.063). Specificity for both tests was 83.3 and 85.5% for proven and proven/probable PP. In patients without an identified pathogen, SofiaFIA® test was positive in 33 (23.6%) cases and BinaxNOW® in 25 (17.8%), so Sofia Pneumococcal FIA® detected 32.6% more cases than BinaxNOW® (p = 0.001). Sofia Pneumococcal FIA® test showed an improved sensitivity over visual reading of BinaxNOW® test without a noticeable loss of specificity.

Comparison of influenza and RSV diagnostic from nasopharyngeal swabs by rapid fluorescent immunoassay (Sofia system) and rapid bedside testing (BinaxNOW) vs. conventional fluorescent immunoassay in a German university children's hospital

The Sofia fluorescent immunoassay showed excellent sensitivity and specificity compared to conventional fluorescent immunoassay for Influenza A (Influenza B was not detected during the study period) and RSV in patients with suspected ILI (influenza-like illness). Thus the fast and easy-to-handle Sofia FIA leads to rapid and reliable diagnosis, which can be used by clinicians to avoid unnecessary antibiotic treatment and rapidly identify patients who need to be isolated upon hospital admission.

Sensitivity of the Quidel Sofia Fluorescent Immunoassay Compared With 2 Nucleic Acid Assays and Viral Culture to Detect Pandemic Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09

To confirm a diagnosis of influenza at the point of care, healthcare professionals may rely on rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs). RIDTs have low to moderate sensitivity compared with viral culture or real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR). With the resurgence of the influenza A (Flu A; subtype H1N1) pandemic 2009 (pdm09) strain in the years 2013 and 2014, we evaluated the accuracy of the United State Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved Sofia Influenza A+B Fluorescent Immunoassay to detect epidemic Flu A(H1N1)pdm09 in specimens from the upper-respiratory tract. During a 3-month period, we collected 40 specimens that tested positive via PCR and/or culture for Flu A of the H1N1 pdm09 subtype. Of the 40 specimens, 27 tested positive (67.5%) via Sofia assay for Flu A. Of the 13 specimens with a negative result via Sofia testing, 4 had coinfection, as detected by the GenMark Diagnostics eSensor Respiratory Viral Panel. This sensitivity of the RIDT Sofia assay to detect Flu A(H1N1) pdm09 was comparable to previously reported sensitivities ranging from 10% to 75% for older RIDTs.

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.

Performance of rapid SOFIA Influenza A+B test compared to Luminex x-TAG respiratory viral panel assay in the diagnosis of influenza A, B, and subtype H3

Influenza is an acute respiratory illness caused by influenza A or B viruses that occur in outbreaks, mainly during the winter season. Rapid laboratory diagnosis of influenza can help guide the clinical management of suspected patients effectively. Clinical sensitivities and specificities of the rapid influenza diagnostic tests have varied considerably in the literature. Most of these studies are evaluated using previously frozen or stored specimens that had previously tested positive. This study compares the performance of the rapid SOFIA Influenza A+B test to nucleic acid multiplex test x-TAG respiratory viral panel (RVP) assay in freshly collected nasal aspirates and measured simultaneously by both assays. Retrospective data from 1649 nasal aspirates (September 2014 to May 2015) collected from adults as well as from children tested simultaneously by both rapid SOFIA Influenza A+B FIA immunofluorescence (Quidel, San Diego, CA) and qualitative nucleic acid multiplex RVP assay X-TAG Luminex technology (Luminex, Austin, Texas, USA) were analyzed. Concordance, and analytical sensitivity and specificity were evaluated for influenza A, subtypes H1 and H3, and influenza B. Prevalence for influenza A by RVP was 15%, for subtype H3 it was 11.2%, and for influenza B, 2.9%. None of the aspirates were positive for influenza A subtype H1. SOFIA Influenza rapid test demonstrated good specificity and low sensitivity compared with a nucleic acid test for influenza A, subtype H3, and for influenza B. SOFIA Influenza A + B test performed well in providing a rapid diagnosis, however, confirmatory molecular testing is recommended for negative test results. Re-evaluation of test performance should be periodically carried out during outbreaks with the emergence and circulation of new influenza strains.

A prospective study to assess the diagnostic performance of the Sofia(®) Immunoassay for Influenza and RSV detection

BACKGROUND

Respiratory viruses RSV and influenza A and B viruses are responsible for important disease outbreaks during the winter season in temperate climate regions. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are assays designed to yield a rapid diagnosis, which facilitates patient management. The Sofia Influenza A+B Fluorescence Immunoassay and Sofia RSV Fluorescence Immunoassay are RDTs for Influenza and RSV detection that employ a new technology to enhance their sensitivity.

OBJECTIVES

Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of the assays were calculated compared with the reference diagnostic method: real-time RT-PCR.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective evaluation was carried out on 1065 respiratory samples for Sofia Influenza A+B FIA and on 261 samples for Sofia RSV FIA from November 2013 to April 2014.

RESULTS

The sensitivities of the Sofia Influenza A+B FIA for influenza A and influenza B detection were, respectively, 75.3% (244/324) and 50.0% (8/16). The sensitivity of the Sofia RSV FIA was 92.1% (128/139). There were no differences in Sofia FIA performance depending on the virus subtype.

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed high sensitivity and specificity values for influenza A and RSV detection, but values were lower for influenza B. More information is needed regarding the performance for influenza B given the small number of positive samples assessed.

Evaluation of a fluorescent immunoassay rapid test (Sofia™) for detection of influenza A+B and RSV in a tertiary pediatric setting

In response to the lack of sensitivity and reproducibility of previously marketed rapid antigen detection tests, a novel fluorescent immunoassay was recently developed. This new assay offers rapidity and automated reading. More characterization of this assay is needed. The aim of this study was to assess diagnostic performance of Sofia influenza A+B and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) while compared to traditional viral cell culture. A total of 416 respiratory samples were analyzed prospectively with both methods in a tertiary pediatric center. Sensitivity and specificity of the Sofia™ test were 90.0% and 98.0% for influenza A, 90.9% and 98.9% for influenza B, and 87.7% and 94.7% for RSV compared to traditional cell culture. Overall, Sofia influenza A+B and RSV assays performed well in comparison to culture in a pediatric population.

Evaluation of a new rapid diagnostic test for the detection of influenza and RSV

INTRODUCTION

Influenza viruses and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) can cause an acute respiratory disease that occurs seasonally in epidemic waves. This retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the Sofia(®) Influenza A+B and the Sofia(®) RSV fluorescence immunoassays (FIAs), two novel rapid detection tests (RDTs) for influenza A and B and RSV.

METHODS

Two hundred and nine breath samples were selected from patients with respiratory symptoms determined to be positive/negative for influenza A, influenza B or RSV using one of the reference diagnostic techniques, cell culture and/or RT-PCR (Simplexa™Flu A/B & RSV). The Sofia Influenza A+B FIA was tested on 123 samples (63 from children and 60 from adults) and the Sofia RSV FIA was tested on 86 pediatric samples. Sensitivity and specificity values of both assays were calculated assuming the reference techniques as the gold standard.

RESULTS

Sensitivity and specificity values for the Sofia Influenza A+B FIA were 73.1% and 97.8%, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity values for the Sofia RSV FIA were 87.5% and 86.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The sensitivity results obtained for the two assays were considerably higher than those reported for other RDTs. In conclusion, the Sofia Influenza A+B and the Sofia RSV FIAs are appropriate tools for the rapid diagnosis of these viruses.

Comparison of Sofia Legionella FIA and BinaxNOW® Legionella urinary antigen card in two national reference centers

The Sofia Legionella Fluorescence Immunoassay (FIA; Quidel) is a recently introduced rapid immunochromatographic diagnostic test for Legionnaires’ disease using immunofluorescence technology designed to enhance its sensitivity. The aim of this study was to evaluate its performance for the detection of urinary antigens for Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 in two National Reference Centers for Legionella. The sensitivity and specificity of the Sofia Legionella FIA test were determined in concentrated and nonconcentrated urine samples, before and after boiling, in comparison with the BinaxNOW® Legionella Urinary Antigen Card (UAC; Alere). Compared with BinaxNOW® Legionella UAC, the sensitivity of the Sofia Legionella test was slightly higher in nonconcentrated urine samples and was identical in concentrated urine samples. The specificity of the Sofia Legionella FIA test was highly reduced by the concentration of urine samples. In nonconcentrated samples, a lack of specificity was observed in 2.3 % of samples, all of them resolved by heat treatment. The Sofia Legionella FIA is a sensitive test for detecting Legionella urinary antigens with no previous urine concentration. However, all positive samples have to be re-tested after boiling to reach a high specificity. The reading is automatized on the Sofia analyzer, which can be connected to laboratory information systems, facilitating accurate and rapid reporting of results.

Clinical performance of the Sofia™ Influenza A+B FIA in adult patients with influenza-like illness

The Sofia™ Influenza A + B FIA demonstrated 74.0% sensitivity and 95.4% specificity for influenza A in patients with influenza-like illness in 2012–2013 season. It yielded higher sensitivity than SD Bioline Influenza Ag A/B/A(H1N1/2009) (54.1%) for influenza A (P < 0.01). The Sofia™ Influenza A + B FIA might be useful for rapid diagnosis of influenza.

•

Sofia™ Influenza A + B FIA is a fluorescent immunoassay of “walk-away” mode for diagnosis of influenza using analyzer.

•

Sofia™ Influenza A + B FIA showed relatively high sensitivity for influenza A viruses during 2012–2013 season in Northern Hemisphere.

•

Sofia™ Influenza A + B FIA might be useful for rapid diagnosis of influenza.

Can newly developed, rapid immunochromatographic antigen detection tests be reliably used for the laboratory diagnosis of influenza virus infections?

Five years ago, the Point-Counterpoint series was launched. The initial article asked about the role of rapid immunochromatographic antigen testing in the diagnosis of influenza A virus 2009 H1N1 infection (D. F. Welch and C. C. Ginocchio, J Clin Microbiol 48:22-25, 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02268-09). Since that article, not only have major changes been made in immunochromatographic antigen detection (IAD) testing for the influenza viruses, but there has also been rapid development of commercially available nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for influenza virus detection. Further, a novel variant of influenza A, H7N9, has emerged in Asia, and H5N1 is also reemergent. In that initial article, the editor of this series, Peter Gilligan, identified two issues that required further consideration. One was how well IAD tests worked in clinical settings, especially in times of antigen drift and shift. The other was the role of future iterations of influenza NAATs and whether this testing would be available in a community hospital setting. James Dunn, who is Director of Medical Microbiology and Virology at Texas Children's Hospital, has extensive experience using IAD tests for diagnosing influenza. He will discuss the application and value of these tests in influenza diagnosis. Christine Ginocchio, who recently retired as the Senior Medical Director, Division of Infectious Disease Diagnostics, North Shore-LIJ Health System, and now is Vice President for Global Microbiology Affairs at bioMérieux, Durham, NC, wrote the initial counterpoint in this series, where she advocated the use of NAATs for influenza diagnosis. She will update us on the commercially available NAAT systems and explain what their role should be in the diagnosis of influenza infection.

Evaluation of Alere i Influenza A&B for rapid detection of influenza viruses A and B

Rapid and accurate diagnosis of influenza is important for infection control, as well as for patient management. Alere i Influenza A&B is an isothermal nucleic acid amplification-based integrated system for detection and differentiation of influenza virus A and influenza virus B. The performance of the Alere i Influenza A&B was screened using frozen nasopharyngeal-swab specimens collected in viral transport medium (VTM) that were originally tested fresh with the FilmArray Respiratory Panel (RP) assay during the 2012-2013 influenza outbreak. In total, 360 VTM specimens were selected for Alere i Influenza A&B testing: 40 influenza virus A H1N1-2009 (influenza virus A-1), 40 influenza virus A H3N2 (influenza virus A-3), 37 influenza virus A "equivocal" or "no subtype detected" (influenza virus A-u), 41 influenza virus B, and 202 influenza virus-negative specimens, as initially determined by the FilmArray RP assay. The Alere assay showed sensitivities of 87.2%, 92.5%, 25.0%, and 97.4% for influenza virus A-1, influenza virus A-3, influenza virus A-u, and influenza virus B, respectively, after discordant resolution by Prodesse ProFLU+ PCR. The specificities were 100% for both influenza virus A and influenza virus B. In general, the Alere i Influenza A&B provided good sensitivity, although the assay did show poorer sensitivity with samples determined to have low influenza virus A titers by Prodesse ProFlu+ PCR (a mean real-time PCR threshold cycle [CT] value of 31.9 ± 2.0), which included the majority of the samples called influenza virus A "equivocal" or "no subtype detected" by a single BioFire FilmArray RP test. The integrated, rapid, and simple characteristics of the Alere i Influenza A&B assay make it a potential candidate for point-of-care testing, with a test turnaround time of less than 15 min.

Evaluation of the Sofia Influenza A + B fluorescent immunoassay for the rapid diagnosis of influenza A and B

Rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) can facilitate the appropriate prescription of antivirals for influenza, obviate the need for unnecessary testing and antibacterial agents and allow the implementation of infection control measures. However, the reported sensitivities and specificities of different RIDTs vary widely in clinical settings, as does assay ability to distinguish between influenza types and subtypes. To evaluate the performance of the Sofia Influenza A + B fluorescent immunoassay (FIA) for the detection of influenza A and B during the 2013 Southern Hemisphere influenza season, a total of 209 consecutive respiratory tract swabs from adult patients with an influenza-like illness were tested by both Sofia Influenza A + B and an in-house real-time, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay. Compared to RT-PCR, the sensitivity and specificity of the Sofia Influenza A + B FIA for detection of influenza A was 72.4% and 98.3%, respectively. Too few influenza B positive samples were available during the study to accurately assess the Sofia's performance for influenza B detection. The sensitivity of Sofia Influenza A + B FIA for both influenza A and B detection correlated with the amount of influenza RNA present in the sample as indicated indirectly by the RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct ). In conclusion, the Sofia Influenza A + B FIA continues to perform well as a RIDT with the circulating influenza strains of the 2013 Southern Hemisphere influenza season.

Clinical performance evaluation of the BD Veritor System Flu A+B assay

Early identification of influenza is important for optimal patient management and infection control. Rapid influenza antigen tests have been used routinely in clinical settings to confirm clinical suspicion, despite their low sensitivity. To improve sensitivity, various influenza point-of-care test reader systems have been developed. This study evaluated the clinical performance of a digital readout rapid influenza diagnostic test (RIDT), the BD Veritor™ System Flu A+B assay (BD). Nasopharyngeal swabs taken from 250 patients (influenza A positive, n=75; influenza B positive, n=75; and influenza negative, n=100) were analyzed using the BinaxNOW® Influenza A/B antigen kit (BN), SD Influenza Ag A/B kit (SD), BD, real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and an influenza virus culture. Compared to RT-PCR, the sensitivities of BN, SD, and BD were 56.0, 53.3, and 72.0%, respectively, for influenza A and 57.3, 65.3, and 69.3%, respectively, for influenza B. No false-positive results were noted with the three rapid antigen tests. For influenza A, the average RT-PCR threshold cycle (Ct) for specimens that tested positive using BD was higher than that for specimens that tested positive using BN and SD. BD is a sensitive and easy method for the early detection of influenza A and B.

Quantitative influenza follow-up testing (QIFT)--a novel biomarker for the monitoring of disease activity at the point-of-care

BACKGROUND

Influenza infections induce considerable disease burden in young children. Biomarkers for the monitoring of disease activity at the point-of-care (POC) are currently lacking. Recent methodologies for fluorescence-based rapid testing have been developed to provide improved sensitivities with the initial diagnosis. The present study aims to explore the utility of second-generation rapid testing during longitudinal follow-up of influenza patients (Rapid Influenza Follow-up Testing = RIFT). Signal/control fluorescent readouts (Quantitative Influenza Follow-up Testing = QIFT) are evaluated as a potential biomarker for the monitoring of disease activity at the POC.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

RIFT (SOFIA) and QIFT were performed at the POC and compared to blinded RT-PCR at the National Reference Centre for Influenza. From 10/2011-4/2013, a total of 2048 paediatric cases were studied prospectively; 273 cases were PCR-confirmed for influenza. During follow-up, RIFT results turned negative either prior to PCR (68%), or simultaneously (30%). The first negative RIFT occurred after a median of 8 days with a median virus load (VL) of 5.6×10∧3 copies/ml and cycle threshold of 37, with no evidence of viral rebound. Binning analysis revealed that QIFT differentiated accurately between patients with low, medium and high viral titres. QIFT increase/decrease showed 88% agreement (sensitivity = 52%, specificity = 95%) with VL increase/decrease, respectively. QIFT-based viral clearance estimates showed similar values compared to PCR-based estimates. Variations in viral clearance rates were lower in treated compared to untreated patients. The study was limited by use of non-invasive, semi-quantitative nasopharyngeal samples. VL measurements below the limit of detection could not be quantified reliably.

CONCLUSIONS

During follow-up, RIFT provides a first surrogate measure for influenza disease activity. A "switch" from positive to negative values may indicate a drop in viral load below a critical threshold, where rebound is no longer expected. QIFT may provide a useful tool for the monitoring of disease burden and viral clearance at the POC.