These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Performance evaluation of a rapid molecular diagnostic, MultiCode based, sample-to-answer assay for the simultaneous detection of Influenza A, B and respiratory syncytial viruses.
    Author: Voermans JJ, Seven-Deniz S, Fraaij PL, van der Eijk AA, Koopmans MP, Pas SD.
    Journal: J Clin Virol; 2016 Dec; 85():65-70. PubMed ID: 27835760.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Clinical signs and symptoms of different airway pathogens are generally indistinguishable, making laboratory tests essential for clinical decisions regarding isolation and antiviral therapy. Immunochromatographic tests (ICT) and direct immunofluorescence assays (DFA) have lower sensitivities and specificities than molecular assays, but have the advantage of quick turnaround times and ease-of-use. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of a rapid molecular assay, ARIES FluA/B & RSV, using laboratory developed RT-PCR assays (LDA), ICT (BinaxNOW) and DFA. METHODS: Analytical and clinical performance were evaluated in a retrospective study arm (stored respiratory samples obtained between 2006-2015) and a prospective study arm (unselected fresh clinical samples obtained between December 2015 and March 2016 tested in parallel with LDAs). RESULTS: Genotype inclusivity and analytical specificity was 100%. However, ARIES was 0.5 log, 1-2logs and 2.5logs less sensitive for fluA, RSV and fluB respectively, compared to LDA. In total, 447 clinical samples were included, of which 15.4% tested positive for fluA, 9.2% for fluB and 26.0% for RSV, in both LDA and ARIES. ARIES clinical sensitivity compared to LDA was 98.6% (fluA), 93.3% (fluB) and 95.1% (RSV). Clinical specificity was 100% for all targets. ARIES detected 10.6% (4 fluA, 8 fluB, 11 RSV) and 26.9% (7 fluA, 3 fluB, 22 RSV) more samples compared to DFA and ICT, all confirmed by LDA. CONCLUSION: Although analytically ARIES is less sensitive than LDA, the clinical performance of the assay in our tertiary care setting was comparable, and significantly better than that of the established rapid assays.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]