• 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.

Virol J . Performance of BioFire array or QuickVue influenza A + B test versus a validation qPCR assay for detection of influenza A during a volunte

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Virol J


. 2021 Feb 25;18(1):45.
doi: 10.1186/s12985-021-01516-0.
Performance of BioFire array or QuickVue influenza A + B test versus a validation qPCR assay for detection of influenza A during a volunteer A/California/2009/H1N1 challenge study


David R McIlwain[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Han Chen[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Maria Apkarian[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Melton Affrime[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Bonnie Bock[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Kenneth Kim[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Nilanjan Mukherjee[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Garry P Nolan[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Monica M McNeal[SUP] 6 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Background: Influenza places a significant burden on global health and economics. Individual case management and public health efforts to mitigate the spread of influenza are both strongly impacted by our ability to accurately and efficiently detect influenza viruses in clinical samples. Therefore, it is important to understand the performance characteristics of available assays to detect influenza in a variety of settings. We provide the first report of relative performance between two products marketed to streamline detection of influenza virus in the context of a highly controlled volunteer influenza challenge study.
Methods: Nasopharyngeal swab samples were collected during a controlled A/California/2009/H1N1 influenza challenge study and analyzed for detection of virus shedding using a validated qRT-PCR (qPCR) assay, a sample-to-answer qRT-PCR device (BioMerieux BioFire FilmArray RP), and an immunoassay based rapid test kit (Quidel QuickVue Influenza A + B Test).
Results: Relative to qPCR, the sensitivity and specificity of the BioFire assay was 72.1% [63.7-79.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI)] and 93.5% (89.3-96.4%, 95% CI) respectively. For the QuickVue rapid test the sensitivity was 8.5% (4.8-13.7%, 95% CI) and specificity was 99.2% (95.6-100%, 95% CI).
Conclusion: Relative to qPCR, the BioFire assay had superior performance compared to rapid test in the context of a controlled influenza challenge study.

Keywords: Biofire film array; H1N1; Influenza; QPCR; RIDT; Rapid influenza diagnostic test; Volunteer influenza challenge study.
 
Back
Top Bottom