鼻咽和口咽样本中的甲型流感快速抗原检测和 PCR 性能评估

IF 1.7 Q3 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Practical Laboratory Medicine Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1016/j.plabm.2024.e00416
Xiaosong Su , Jiaye Zhou , Ling Liu , Hongzhi Gao , Yan Lin , Zhile Wang , Xin Zhang , Baishen Pan , Beili Wang , Chunyan Zhang , Wei Guo
{"title":"鼻咽和口咽样本中的甲型流感快速抗原检测和 PCR 性能评估","authors":"Xiaosong Su ,&nbsp;Jiaye Zhou ,&nbsp;Ling Liu ,&nbsp;Hongzhi Gao ,&nbsp;Yan Lin ,&nbsp;Zhile Wang ,&nbsp;Xin Zhang ,&nbsp;Baishen Pan ,&nbsp;Beili Wang ,&nbsp;Chunyan Zhang ,&nbsp;Wei Guo","doi":"10.1016/j.plabm.2024.e00416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Rapid antigen test (RAT) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using nasopharyngeal (NP) or oropharyngeal (OP) swab specimens are the two main testing techniques used for laboratory diagnosis of influenza in clinical practice. However, performance variations have been observed not only between techniques, but also between different specimens. This study evaluated the differences in performance between specimens and testing techniques to identify the best combination in clinical practice.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Both NP and OP samples from suspected influenza patients collected in the 2023/4–2023/5 Flu-season in Xiamen, China, were tested for RAT and quantitative PCR. The testing performance of the different specimens and testing techniques were recorded and evaluated.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Compared to PCR, RAT showed 58.9 % and 10.3 % sensitivity for NP and OP swabs, respectively. The Limit of Detection (LoD) was 28.71 the Median Tissue Culture Infectious Dose (TCID<sub>50</sub>)/mL. Compared with PCR using NP swabs, PCR with OP swabs showed 89.5 % sensitivity and 95.4 % specificity.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>There were no significant differences in performance between the specimens when PCR was used to test for influenza. However, a decrease in sensitivity was observed when the RAT was used, regardless of the specimen type. Therefore, to avoid false-negative results, PCR may be a better choice when OP swabs are used as specimens. In contrast, NP swabs should be the recommended specimens for RAT.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":20421,"journal":{"name":"Practical Laboratory Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352551724000623/pdfft?md5=efeafd52dcb04891c8f51ab8d9ce74d1&pid=1-s2.0-S2352551724000623-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance evaluation of influenza a rapid antigen test and PCR among nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal samples\",\"authors\":\"Xiaosong Su ,&nbsp;Jiaye Zhou ,&nbsp;Ling Liu ,&nbsp;Hongzhi Gao ,&nbsp;Yan Lin ,&nbsp;Zhile Wang ,&nbsp;Xin Zhang ,&nbsp;Baishen Pan ,&nbsp;Beili Wang ,&nbsp;Chunyan Zhang ,&nbsp;Wei Guo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.plabm.2024.e00416\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Rapid antigen test (RAT) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using nasopharyngeal (NP) or oropharyngeal (OP) swab specimens are the two main testing techniques used for laboratory diagnosis of influenza in clinical practice. However, performance variations have been observed not only between techniques, but also between different specimens. This study evaluated the differences in performance between specimens and testing techniques to identify the best combination in clinical practice.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Both NP and OP samples from suspected influenza patients collected in the 2023/4–2023/5 Flu-season in Xiamen, China, were tested for RAT and quantitative PCR. The testing performance of the different specimens and testing techniques were recorded and evaluated.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Compared to PCR, RAT showed 58.9 % and 10.3 % sensitivity for NP and OP swabs, respectively. The Limit of Detection (LoD) was 28.71 the Median Tissue Culture Infectious Dose (TCID<sub>50</sub>)/mL. Compared with PCR using NP swabs, PCR with OP swabs showed 89.5 % sensitivity and 95.4 % specificity.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>There were no significant differences in performance between the specimens when PCR was used to test for influenza. However, a decrease in sensitivity was observed when the RAT was used, regardless of the specimen type. Therefore, to avoid false-negative results, PCR may be a better choice when OP swabs are used as specimens. In contrast, NP swabs should be the recommended specimens for RAT.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20421,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Practical Laboratory Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352551724000623/pdfft?md5=efeafd52dcb04891c8f51ab8d9ce74d1&pid=1-s2.0-S2352551724000623-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Practical Laboratory Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352551724000623\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352551724000623","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的使用鼻咽(NP)或口咽(OP)拭子标本进行快速抗原检测(RAT)和聚合酶链反应(PCR)是临床实践中用于流感实验室诊断的两种主要检测技术。然而,不仅不同技术之间存在性能差异,不同标本之间也存在性能差异。本研究评估了不同标本和检测技术之间的性能差异,以确定临床实践中的最佳组合。方法对中国厦门 2023/4-2023/5 流感季节采集的疑似流感患者的 NP 和 OP 标本进行 RAT 和定量 PCR 检测。结果与 PCR 相比,RAT 对 NP 和 OP 拭子的灵敏度分别为 58.9% 和 10.3%。检测限(LoD)为 28.71 中位组织培养感染剂量(TCID50)/毫升。与使用 NP 涂片进行 PCR 相比,使用 OP 涂片进行 PCR 的灵敏度为 89.5%,特异度为 95.4%。然而,使用 RAT 时,无论标本类型如何,灵敏度都会下降。因此,为避免出现假阴性结果,在使用 OP 拭子作为标本时,PCR 可能是更好的选择。相反,NP拭子应作为 RAT 的推荐标本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Performance evaluation of influenza a rapid antigen test and PCR among nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal samples

Objectives

Rapid antigen test (RAT) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using nasopharyngeal (NP) or oropharyngeal (OP) swab specimens are the two main testing techniques used for laboratory diagnosis of influenza in clinical practice. However, performance variations have been observed not only between techniques, but also between different specimens. This study evaluated the differences in performance between specimens and testing techniques to identify the best combination in clinical practice.

Methods

Both NP and OP samples from suspected influenza patients collected in the 2023/4–2023/5 Flu-season in Xiamen, China, were tested for RAT and quantitative PCR. The testing performance of the different specimens and testing techniques were recorded and evaluated.

Results

Compared to PCR, RAT showed 58.9 % and 10.3 % sensitivity for NP and OP swabs, respectively. The Limit of Detection (LoD) was 28.71 the Median Tissue Culture Infectious Dose (TCID50)/mL. Compared with PCR using NP swabs, PCR with OP swabs showed 89.5 % sensitivity and 95.4 % specificity.

Conclusions

There were no significant differences in performance between the specimens when PCR was used to test for influenza. However, a decrease in sensitivity was observed when the RAT was used, regardless of the specimen type. Therefore, to avoid false-negative results, PCR may be a better choice when OP swabs are used as specimens. In contrast, NP swabs should be the recommended specimens for RAT.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Practical Laboratory Medicine
Practical Laboratory Medicine Health Professions-Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊介绍: Practical Laboratory Medicine is a high-quality, peer-reviewed, international open-access journal publishing original research, new methods and critical evaluations, case reports and short papers in the fields of clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine. The objective of the journal is to provide practical information of immediate relevance to workers in clinical laboratories. The primary scope of the journal covers clinical chemistry, hematology, molecular biology and genetics relevant to laboratory medicine, microbiology, immunology, therapeutic drug monitoring and toxicology, laboratory management and informatics. We welcome papers which describe critical evaluations of biomarkers and their role in the diagnosis and treatment of clinically significant disease, validation of commercial and in-house IVD methods, method comparisons, interference reports, the development of new reagents and reference materials, reference range studies and regulatory compliance reports. Manuscripts describing the development of new methods applicable to laboratory medicine (including point-of-care testing) are particularly encouraged, even if preliminary or small scale.
期刊最新文献
Development of a rapid LFA test based on direct RT-LAMP for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Glycated albumin in pregnancy correlates negatively with body mass index and contributes to the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus A novel case of Hb Bart's hydrops fetalis following prenatal diagnosis: Case report from Huizhou, China The interference and elimination of nitrite on determination of total urinary protein by Pyrogallol Red–Molybdate method Comparison of qPCR and chromogenic culture methods for rapid detection of group B streptococcus colonization in Vietnamese pregnant women
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1