16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Does this patient have influenza?

          Influenza vaccination lowers, but does not eliminate, the risk of influenza. Making a reliable, rapid clinical diagnosis is essential to appropriate patient management that may be especially important during shortages of antiviral agents caused by high demand. To systematically review the precision and accuracy of symptoms and signs of influenza. A secondary objective was to review the operating characteristics of rapid diagnostic tests for influenza (results available in <30 min). Structured search strategy using MEDLINE (January 1966-September 2004) and subsequent searches of bibliographies of retrieved articles to identify articles describing primary studies dealing with the diagnosis of influenza based on clinical signs and symptoms. The MEDLINE search used the Medical Subject Headings EXP influenza or EXP influenza A virus or EXP influenza A virus human or EXP influenza B virus and the Medical Subject Headings or terms EXP sensitivity and specificity or EXP medical history taking or EXP physical examination or EXP reproducibility of results or EXP observer variation or symptoms.mp or clinical signs.mp or sensitivity.mp or specificity.mp. Of 915 identified articles on clinical assessment of influenza-related illness, 17 contained data on the operating characteristics of symptoms and signs using an independent criterion standard. Of these, 11 were eliminated based on 4 inclusion criteria and availability of nonduplicative primary data. Two authors independently reviewed and abstracted data for estimating the likelihood ratios (LRs) of clinical diagnostic findings. Differences were resolved by discussion and consensus. No symptom or sign had a summary LR greater than 2 in studies that enrolled patients without regard to age. For decreasing the likelihood of influenza, the absence of fever (LR, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.66), cough (LR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.31-0.57), or nasal congestion (LR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.42-0.59) were the only findings that had summary LRs less than 0.5. In studies limited to patients aged 60 years or older, the combination of fever, cough, and acute onset (LR, 5.4; 95% CI, 3.8-7.7), fever and cough (LR, 5.0; 95% CI, 3.5-6.9), fever alone (LR, 3.8; 95% CI, 2.8-5.0), malaise (LR, 2.6; 95% CI, 2.2-3.1), and chills (LR, 2.6; 95% CI, 2.0-3.2) increased the likelihood of influenza to the greatest degree. The presence of sneezing among older patients made influenza less likely (LR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.92). Clinical findings identify patients with influenza-like illness but are not particularly useful for confirming or excluding the diagnosis of influenza. Clinicians should use timely epidemiologic data to ascertain if influenza is circulating in their communities, then either treat patients with influenza-like illness empirically or obtain a rapid influenza test to assist with management decisions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Comparison of the Biofire FilmArray RP, Genmark eSensor RVP, Luminex xTAG RVPv1, and Luminex xTAG RVP fast multiplex assays for detection of respiratory viruses.

            There are several U.S. FDA-cleared molecular respiratory virus panels available today, each with advantages and disadvantages. This study compares four multiplex panels, the BioFire Diagnostics FilmArray RP (respiratory panel), the GenMark Dx eSensor RVP (respiratory viral panel), the Luminex xTAG RVPv1, and the Luminex xTAG RVP fast. Three hundred specimens (200 retrospective and 100 consecutive) were tested using all four platforms to determine performance characteristics. The overall sensitivity and specificity, respectively, and 95% confidence interval (CI; in parentheses) for each panel were as follows: FilmArray RP, 84.5% (79.2, 88.6) and 100% (96.2, 100); eSensor RVP, 98.3% (95.5, 99.5) and 99.2% (95.4, 100); xTAG RVPv1, 92.7% (88.5, 95.4) and 99.8% (96.0, 100); and xTAG RVP fast, 84.4% (78.5, 88.9) and 99.9% (96.1, 100). The sensitivity of each assay fluctuated by viral target, with the greatest discrepancies noted for adenovirus and influenza virus B detection. Hands-on time and time to result were recorded and ease of use was assessed to generate a complete profile of each assay.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Clinical and financial benefits of rapid detection of respiratory viruses: an outcomes study.

              To assess the expected benefits of rapid reporting of respiratory viruses, we compared patients whose samples were processed using standard techniques such as enzyme immunoassays, shell vial assays, and culture tube assays (year 1) to patients whose samples were processed with the same standard techniques in addition to immunofluorescent testing (FA) directly on cytocentrifuged samples (year 2). The cytospin FA screened for influenza A and B viruses, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenza viruses 1 to 3, and adenovirus (DAKO Diagnostics Ltd.). The specificity of the cytospin FA for all viruses was 100%. The sensitivities for influenza A virus and RSV were 90 and 98%, respectively, but the sensitivities for influenza B virus and adenovirus were unacceptable (14.3 and 0%, respectively). However, since the former viruses account for >85% of our isolates from clinical specimens, the cytospin FA is an excellent screening test since the positive result was available within hours. The mean turnaround time for all positive viruses was 4.5 days in year 1 and 0.9 day in year 2 (P = 0.001). This rapid reporting resulted in physicians having access to information sooner, enabling more appropriate treatment. The mean length of stay in the hospital for inpatients with respiratory viral isolates was 10.6 days for year 1 versus 5.3 days for year 2. Mean variable costs for these patients was $7,893 in year 1 and $2,177 in year 2. After subtracting reagent costs and technological time, the savings in variable costs was $144,332/year. Summarizing, the cytospin FA markedly decreased turnaround time and was associated with decreased mortality, length of stay, and costs and with better antibiotic stewardship.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp)
                Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp)
                EUJMI
                European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology
                Akadémiai Kiadó (Budapest )
                2062-509X
                2062-8633
                04 December 2015
                December 2015
                : 5
                : 4
                : 236-245
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Roche Molecular Systems , Marlborough 01752, MA, USA
                [2 ]Medical and Scientific Affairs, Roche Molecular Systems , Pleasanton 94588, CA, USA
                Author notes
                * Roche Molecular Systems, 4300 Hacienda Dr., Pleasanton, CA, 94566, USA; +1 925 7308006; +1 925 7308985; oliver.liesenfeld@ 123456roche.com
                Article
                10.1556/1886.2015.00046
                4681351
                © 2015, The Author(s)

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 8, Equations: 0, References: 39, Pages: 10
                Categories
                Original Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article