Rapid diagnosis of influenza: An evaluation of two commercially available RT-PCR assays

Mark Li; Nigel Brenwald; Sandra Bonigal; Kulvir Chana; Husam Osman; Beryl Oppenheim

doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2012.04.003

Rapid diagnosis of influenza: An evaluation of two commercially available RT-PCR assays

Mark Li^*, Nigel Brenwald, Sandra Bonigal, Kulvir Chana, Husam Osman, Beryl Oppenheim

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of influenza virus detection by two commercial reverse transcriptase PCR methods compared with a reference real-time PCR. Methods: 122 clinical specimens were tested on Xpert^® Flu and RealStar^® Influenza Screen & Type. A reference real-time RT-PCR, at a specialist laboratory was chosen as the gold standard for comparison. Results: RealStar^® Influenza Screen & Type had higher sensitivity for influenza A and influenza B respectively (92.3% and 88.2%) when compared to Xpert^® Flu (78.8% and 76.5%). Both tests had excellent specificity. Conclusions: The simplicity and speed of the Xpert^® Flu system could allow it to be used in the near-patient setting; however in circumstances where excluding a diagnosis of influenza may be critical, negative specimens may need to be repeated using a more sensitive assay.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	60-63
Number of pages	4
Journal	Journal of Infection
Volume	65
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2012.04.003
Publication status	Published - Jul 2012
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Commercial
Comparison
Influenza
PCR

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jinf.2012.04.003

Cite this

@article{0b3ac1731db84c32a64c8aa84ac4d778,

title = "Rapid diagnosis of influenza: An evaluation of two commercially available RT-PCR assays",

abstract = "Objective: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of influenza virus detection by two commercial reverse transcriptase PCR methods compared with a reference real-time PCR. Methods: 122 clinical specimens were tested on Xpert{\textregistered} Flu and RealStar{\textregistered} Influenza Screen & Type. A reference real-time RT-PCR, at a specialist laboratory was chosen as the gold standard for comparison. Results: RealStar{\textregistered} Influenza Screen & Type had higher sensitivity for influenza A and influenza B respectively (92.3% and 88.2%) when compared to Xpert{\textregistered} Flu (78.8% and 76.5%). Both tests had excellent specificity. Conclusions: The simplicity and speed of the Xpert{\textregistered} Flu system could allow it to be used in the near-patient setting; however in circumstances where excluding a diagnosis of influenza may be critical, negative specimens may need to be repeated using a more sensitive assay.",

keywords = "Commercial, Comparison, Influenza, PCR",

author = "Mark Li and Nigel Brenwald and Sandra Bonigal and Kulvir Chana and Husam Osman and Beryl Oppenheim",

year = "2012",

month = jul,

doi = "10.1016/j.jinf.2012.04.003",

language = "English",

volume = "65",

pages = "60--63",

journal = "Journal of Infection",

issn = "0163-4453",

publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rapid diagnosis of influenza

T2 - An evaluation of two commercially available RT-PCR assays

AU - Li, Mark

AU - Brenwald, Nigel

AU - Bonigal, Sandra

AU - Chana, Kulvir

AU - Osman, Husam

AU - Oppenheim, Beryl

PY - 2012/7

Y1 - 2012/7

N2 - Objective: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of influenza virus detection by two commercial reverse transcriptase PCR methods compared with a reference real-time PCR. Methods: 122 clinical specimens were tested on Xpert® Flu and RealStar® Influenza Screen & Type. A reference real-time RT-PCR, at a specialist laboratory was chosen as the gold standard for comparison. Results: RealStar® Influenza Screen & Type had higher sensitivity for influenza A and influenza B respectively (92.3% and 88.2%) when compared to Xpert® Flu (78.8% and 76.5%). Both tests had excellent specificity. Conclusions: The simplicity and speed of the Xpert® Flu system could allow it to be used in the near-patient setting; however in circumstances where excluding a diagnosis of influenza may be critical, negative specimens may need to be repeated using a more sensitive assay.

AB - Objective: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of influenza virus detection by two commercial reverse transcriptase PCR methods compared with a reference real-time PCR. Methods: 122 clinical specimens were tested on Xpert® Flu and RealStar® Influenza Screen & Type. A reference real-time RT-PCR, at a specialist laboratory was chosen as the gold standard for comparison. Results: RealStar® Influenza Screen & Type had higher sensitivity for influenza A and influenza B respectively (92.3% and 88.2%) when compared to Xpert® Flu (78.8% and 76.5%). Both tests had excellent specificity. Conclusions: The simplicity and speed of the Xpert® Flu system could allow it to be used in the near-patient setting; however in circumstances where excluding a diagnosis of influenza may be critical, negative specimens may need to be repeated using a more sensitive assay.

KW - Commercial

KW - Comparison

KW - Influenza

KW - PCR

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861480973&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jinf.2012.04.003

DO - 10.1016/j.jinf.2012.04.003

M3 - Article

C2 - 22522291

AN - SCOPUS:84861480973

SN - 0163-4453

VL - 65

SP - 60

EP - 63

JO - Journal of Infection

JF - Journal of Infection

IS - 1

ER -

Rapid diagnosis of influenza: An evaluation of two commercially available RT-PCR assays

Abstract

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this