在今天的分子诊断领域,快速流感抗原检测在临床上仍然有用吗?

Valentina K Trombetta, Yvonne L Chan, Matthew J Bankowski
{"title":"在今天的分子诊断领域,快速流感抗原检测在临床上仍然有用吗?","authors":"Valentina K Trombetta,&nbsp;Yvonne L Chan,&nbsp;Matthew J Bankowski","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Influenza virus infection and disease historically contribute to widespread cases of seasonal morbidity and in some cases mortality. Prompt and accurate diagnosis is crucial for optimal patient management. Rapid influenza direct antigen testing (RIDT) offers a faster turn-around-time for results but test performance (ie, sensitivity and specificity) varies widely. Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) can offer a viable alternative. The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the test performance of RIDT with NAAT. RIDT testing included the Directigen EZ Flu A+B or the Veritor System for Rapid Detection of Flu A+B. NAAT employed the SimplexaTM Flu A/B™ RSV assay. A total of 5,795 specimens collected from October to March for the 2012/2013 (n=953), 2013/2014 (n=2060) and 2014/2015 (n=2783) seasons were co-tested by RIDT and NAAT. Using NAAT as the gold standard, RIDT tests had a sensitivity range of 0 to 15.7% and a specificity of 98.2 to 100% for influenza type A. For influenza type B, RIDT tests had a sensitivity of 0 to 33.3% and a specificity of 98.9 to 100%. These findings suggest that RIDT has unacceptably low sensitivity for both influenza A and influenza B, despite high specificity. The key advantage of RIDT in previous years (faster turnaround time) has been challenged by newer NAAT technology that provides results in a turn-around-time comparable to RIDT, but with superior test performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":73197,"journal":{"name":"Hawai'i journal of medicine & public health : a journal of Asia Pacific Medicine & Public Health","volume":"77 9","pages":"226-230"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137576/pdf/hjmph7709_0226.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are Rapid Influenza Antigen Tests Still Clinically Useful in Today's Molecular Diagnostics World?\",\"authors\":\"Valentina K Trombetta,&nbsp;Yvonne L Chan,&nbsp;Matthew J Bankowski\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Influenza virus infection and disease historically contribute to widespread cases of seasonal morbidity and in some cases mortality. Prompt and accurate diagnosis is crucial for optimal patient management. Rapid influenza direct antigen testing (RIDT) offers a faster turn-around-time for results but test performance (ie, sensitivity and specificity) varies widely. Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) can offer a viable alternative. The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the test performance of RIDT with NAAT. RIDT testing included the Directigen EZ Flu A+B or the Veritor System for Rapid Detection of Flu A+B. NAAT employed the SimplexaTM Flu A/B™ RSV assay. A total of 5,795 specimens collected from October to March for the 2012/2013 (n=953), 2013/2014 (n=2060) and 2014/2015 (n=2783) seasons were co-tested by RIDT and NAAT. Using NAAT as the gold standard, RIDT tests had a sensitivity range of 0 to 15.7% and a specificity of 98.2 to 100% for influenza type A. For influenza type B, RIDT tests had a sensitivity of 0 to 33.3% and a specificity of 98.9 to 100%. These findings suggest that RIDT has unacceptably low sensitivity for both influenza A and influenza B, despite high specificity. The key advantage of RIDT in previous years (faster turnaround time) has been challenged by newer NAAT technology that provides results in a turn-around-time comparable to RIDT, but with superior test performance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73197,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hawai'i journal of medicine & public health : a journal of Asia Pacific Medicine & Public Health\",\"volume\":\"77 9\",\"pages\":\"226-230\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137576/pdf/hjmph7709_0226.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hawai'i journal of medicine & public health : a journal of Asia Pacific Medicine & Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hawai'i journal of medicine & public health : a journal of Asia Pacific Medicine & Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

流感病毒感染和疾病历来造成广泛的季节性发病病例,在某些情况下造成死亡。及时和准确的诊断对于最佳的患者管理至关重要。快速流感直接抗原检测(RIDT)提供更快的结果周转时间,但检测性能(即灵敏度和特异性)差异很大。核酸扩增检测(NAAT)可以提供一个可行的替代方案。本回顾性研究的目的是比较RIDT和NAAT的测试性能。RIDT测试包括Directigen EZ流感A+B或快速检测流感A+B的Veritor系统。NAAT采用SimplexaTM Flu A/B™RSV检测。2012/2013年(n=953)、2013/2014年(n=2060)和2014/2015年(n=2783) 3个季节(10 - 3月)采集标本5795份,采用RIDT和NAAT联合检测。以NAAT为金标准,RIDT检测对a型流感的敏感性为0 ~ 15.7%,特异性为98.2% ~ 100%。对B型流感,RIDT检测的敏感性为0 ~ 33.3%,特异性为98.9 ~ 100%。这些发现表明,尽管具有高特异性,但RIDT对甲型流感和乙型流感的敏感性都低得令人无法接受。在过去几年里,RIDT的主要优势(更快的周转时间)已经被更新的NAAT技术所挑战,NAAT技术提供的周转时间与RIDT相当,但具有更好的测试性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are Rapid Influenza Antigen Tests Still Clinically Useful in Today's Molecular Diagnostics World?

Influenza virus infection and disease historically contribute to widespread cases of seasonal morbidity and in some cases mortality. Prompt and accurate diagnosis is crucial for optimal patient management. Rapid influenza direct antigen testing (RIDT) offers a faster turn-around-time for results but test performance (ie, sensitivity and specificity) varies widely. Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) can offer a viable alternative. The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the test performance of RIDT with NAAT. RIDT testing included the Directigen EZ Flu A+B or the Veritor System for Rapid Detection of Flu A+B. NAAT employed the SimplexaTM Flu A/B™ RSV assay. A total of 5,795 specimens collected from October to March for the 2012/2013 (n=953), 2013/2014 (n=2060) and 2014/2015 (n=2783) seasons were co-tested by RIDT and NAAT. Using NAAT as the gold standard, RIDT tests had a sensitivity range of 0 to 15.7% and a specificity of 98.2 to 100% for influenza type A. For influenza type B, RIDT tests had a sensitivity of 0 to 33.3% and a specificity of 98.9 to 100%. These findings suggest that RIDT has unacceptably low sensitivity for both influenza A and influenza B, despite high specificity. The key advantage of RIDT in previous years (faster turnaround time) has been challenged by newer NAAT technology that provides results in a turn-around-time comparable to RIDT, but with superior test performance.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Prevalence of Risk and Protective Factors Associated with HIV and HCV Infections Among Male High School Students Who Have Sex with Males-Hawai'i, 2013, 2015, and 2017. Rising Incidence of Colorectal Cancer in Patients Younger than Age 50 in Hawai'i. Fishhook Injury of the Anterior Chamber Angle of the Eye. Community Demand, Academic Partnership, and the Birth ofthe Bachelor of Social Work Program Distance Education Option. A Unique Partnership Between the University of Hawai'i Cancer Center and the University of Guam: Fifteen Years of Addressing Cancer Health Disparities in Pacific Islanders in Hawai'i and Guam.
×
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