• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

J Med Virol . Performance of Two Molecular Point-of-Care Influenza A/B Tests Compared to the Cepheid Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV Assay

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
J Med Virol


. 2026 Aug;98(8):e71115.
doi: 10.1002/jmv.71115.
Performance of Two Molecular Point-of-Care Influenza A/B Tests Compared to the Cepheid Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV Assay

Ran Zhao[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Xue Cai[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Yingwei Chen[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Zhongqiang Huang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Chengxiang Chu[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Chunli Shi[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Weijie Ding[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Xiaobo Hu[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Xueliang Wang[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP]


Affiliations
Abstract

Molecular point-of-care testing (POCT) platforms have demonstrated considerable utility in rapid and accurate influenza diagnostics. Among them, the Cepheid Xpert is widely used in clinical practice, while Coyote Flash10 and Genewise NAT-3000 were recently approved, with few performance data available. Performances of Flash10 and NAT-3000 were evaluated in parallel with the Xpert assay. The limits of detection (LoDs) were determined using serially diluted standard reference materials of inactivated influenza virus A and B (FluA/B). Clinical performance was assessed using 200 remnant nasopharyngeal swab specimens. Other assay features were also compared. All three platforms featured comparable hands-on procedures and turnaround times ranging from 26 to 33 min. The Xpert assay was more sensitive than the other two, with the lowest LoDs at 72.6, 49.3, 213.2, and 66.8 copies/mL for FluA H1N1, FluA H3N2, FluB Victoria, and FluB Yamagata, respectively. The Flash10 and NAT-3000 assays showed similar LoDs for FluA, ranging from 483.4 to 576.8 copies/mL; for Victoria and Yamagata, their LoDs were 296.4 and 92.7 copies/mL for Flash10 and 1419.1 and 591.0 copies/mL for NAT-3000. Clinical performance revealed high concordance across assays. Positive and negative percentage agreements ranged from 93.33% to 100.00%, along with high Kappa values ranging from 0.94 to 0.95. Linear regression analysis showed moderate to strong associations between the cycle threshold values of positive specimens. The two new molecular POCT platforms were similarly user-friendly and showed comparable performance to the Xpert platform for FluA/B detection, despite their higher LoDs, indicating they are potential alternatives for rapid respiratory virus detection.

Keywords: Influenza virus A and B; point‐of‐care testing; rapid molecular diagnosis; turnaround time.

 
Back
Top