tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Int J Infect Dis
. 2020 Dec 23;S1201-9712(20)32584-4.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.12.059. Online ahead of print.
Laboratory evaluation of two point-of-care detection systems for early and accurate detectaion of influenza in the Lao People's Democratic Republic
Wanitchaya Kittikraisak[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Bouaphanh Khamphaphongphane[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Sinakhone Xayadeth[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Virasack Som Oulay[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Viengphone Khanthamaly[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Onanong Sengvilaipaseuth[SUP] 2 [/SUP], C Todd Davis[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Genyan Yang[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Natosha Zanders[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Joshua A Mott[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Phonepadith Xangsayarath[SUP] 2 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Background: We evaluated molecular-based point-of-care influenza detection systems in a laboratory prior to the field evaluations of on-site specimen testing.
Methods: Performance of 1) insulated isothermal PCR on the POCKIT[SUP]TM[/SUP] device and 2) real-time reverse transcription-PCR (rRT-PCR) on a MyGo Mini device were evaluated using human clinical specimens, beta-propiolactone-inactivated influenza viruses, and RNA controls. The rRT-PCR carried out on a CXF-96[SUP]TM[/SUP] Real-time Detection System was used as a gold standard for comparisons.
Results: Both systems demonstrated 100% sensitivity and specificity and test results were in 100% agreement with the gold standard. POCKIT[SUP]TM[/SUP] only correctly identified influenza A(M gene) in clinical specimens due to the unavailability of typing and subtyping reagents for human influenza viruses, while MyGo Mini had either a one log higher or the same sensitivity in detecting influenza viruses in clinical specimens compared to the gold standard. For inactivated viruses and/or viral RNA, the analytic sensitivity of POCKIT[SUP]TM[/SUP] was shown to be comparable to, or more sensitive, than the gold standard. The analytic sensitivity of MyGo Mini had mixed results depending on the types and subtypes of influenza viruses.
Conclusions: The performance of the two systems in a laboratory is promising and supports further evaluation in field settings.
Keywords: Detection system; Influenza; Laboratory evaluation; Molecular; Point-of-care.
. 2020 Dec 23;S1201-9712(20)32584-4.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.12.059. Online ahead of print.
Laboratory evaluation of two point-of-care detection systems for early and accurate detectaion of influenza in the Lao People's Democratic Republic
Wanitchaya Kittikraisak[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Bouaphanh Khamphaphongphane[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Sinakhone Xayadeth[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Virasack Som Oulay[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Viengphone Khanthamaly[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Onanong Sengvilaipaseuth[SUP] 2 [/SUP], C Todd Davis[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Genyan Yang[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Natosha Zanders[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Joshua A Mott[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Phonepadith Xangsayarath[SUP] 2 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 33359952
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.12.059
Abstract
Background: We evaluated molecular-based point-of-care influenza detection systems in a laboratory prior to the field evaluations of on-site specimen testing.
Methods: Performance of 1) insulated isothermal PCR on the POCKIT[SUP]TM[/SUP] device and 2) real-time reverse transcription-PCR (rRT-PCR) on a MyGo Mini device were evaluated using human clinical specimens, beta-propiolactone-inactivated influenza viruses, and RNA controls. The rRT-PCR carried out on a CXF-96[SUP]TM[/SUP] Real-time Detection System was used as a gold standard for comparisons.
Results: Both systems demonstrated 100% sensitivity and specificity and test results were in 100% agreement with the gold standard. POCKIT[SUP]TM[/SUP] only correctly identified influenza A(M gene) in clinical specimens due to the unavailability of typing and subtyping reagents for human influenza viruses, while MyGo Mini had either a one log higher or the same sensitivity in detecting influenza viruses in clinical specimens compared to the gold standard. For inactivated viruses and/or viral RNA, the analytic sensitivity of POCKIT[SUP]TM[/SUP] was shown to be comparable to, or more sensitive, than the gold standard. The analytic sensitivity of MyGo Mini had mixed results depending on the types and subtypes of influenza viruses.
Conclusions: The performance of the two systems in a laboratory is promising and supports further evaluation in field settings.
Keywords: Detection system; Influenza; Laboratory evaluation; Molecular; Point-of-care.