Clinical Evaluation of an Immunochromatography Test for Rapid Diagnosis of Influenza

Comparison of the Directigen Flu A+B Test, the QuickVue Influenza Test, and Clinical Case Definition to Viral Culture and Reverse Transcription-PCR for Rapid Diagnosis of Influenza Virus Infection

“…In our study, the performance of Directigen was equivalent or superior to what has previously been described for Directigen Flu A (12,20,23,24,28,29,33) and consistent with the performance of Directigen in two previous studies with nasopharyngeal aspirates from a pediatric population (6,44). Our results are also consistent with those from previous studies of QuickVue, which reported sensitivities and specificities varying between 75 and 95% and between 76 and 93%, respectively (21,31,34,45). Our use of QuickVue within 7 days of storage at 4°C rather than within 1 h, as suggested by the manufacturer, might have affected the performance of the test but reflects the limitations of a hospital laboratory to perform tests "stat.…”

“…The 2000-2001 flu season allowed us to test the devices with both influenza virus A and influenza virus B, with an excess of influenza virus B. Only nasopharyngeal aspirates were considered because they usually provide the greatest sensitivity (11,20,34,35,45), although this may not be true for children (17). When the results of both rapid tests were compared with those of RT-PCR, both rapid tests appeared to be more sensitive for the detection of influenza virus A than for the detection of influenza virus B (for Directigen, 84 versus 78%; for QuickVue, 90 versus 84% [data not shown]).…”

“…), QuickVue influenza test (referred to herein as QuickVue; Quidel, San Diego, Calif.), Flu OIA (Bio Star, Inc., Boulder, Colo.,) and Zstat (ZymeTx, Inc., Oklahoma City, Okla.). Most of them have been compared with culture (8,12,20,23,24,29,33,34,36,39,44,45) or culture and reverse transcription (RT)-PCR (2,18,21,22,25), but in some studies RT-PCR has occasionally been used to clarify the results for samples with discrepant results (6,11,28). This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the clinical case definition of influenza for prediction of influenza virus infections during epidemics and to compare the diagnostic performances of two new enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, Directigen and QuickVue, to those of viral culture and an in-house RT-PCR.…”

Long-Acting Neuraminidase Inhibitor Laninamivir Octanoate (CS-8958) versus Oseltamivir as Treatment for Children with Influenza Virus Infection

“…Influenza virus infection was diagnosed by the investigator based on the results obtained with a rapid diagnostic kit (mainly Capilia FluAϩB [Tauns Co., Ltd., Shizuoka, Japan] [11] and QuickVue Rapid-SP influ [Quidel Corp., CA] [24]) and the clinical findings. Patients were excluded from the trial if they were suspected of having an infection by bacteria or a noninfluenza virus within 1 week before enrollment, reported any influenza-like symptoms within 1 week before the onset of influenza, had any chronic respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, central nervous disorder, renal dysfunction, metabolic disorder, immune dysfunction, or other severe disorder, had a history of abnormal behavior while infected with influenza virus, or had been treated with amantadine, zanamivir, or oseltamivir within the previous 4 weeks.…”

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Testing for Influenza A in High-Risk Adults

“…[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] When indicated, test performance characteristics were used from adult patients; when the age of the participants was not specifi ed, summary data were used. The sensitivity of the 5 diagnostic tests ranged from 51.4% to 92.0%, with an average of 72.5%.…”