CVI
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Weinberg, A.
Right arrow Articles by Walker, M. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Weinberg, A.
Right arrow Articles by Walker, M. L.
Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, March 2005, p. 367-370, Vol. 12, No. 3
1071-412X/05/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/CDLI.12.3.367-370.2005
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Evaluation of Three Immunoassay Kits for Rapid Detection of Influenza Virus A and B

Adriana Weinberg1,2* and Miranda L. Walker1

Clinical Virology Laboratory, University of Colorado Hospital,1 Departments of Pediatrics and Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, Colorado2

Received 3 November 2004/ Returned for modification 9 December 2004/ Accepted 11 January 2005

Influenza causes high morbidity and mortality in very young and elderly individuals, which can be controlled with antivirals and/or vaccines. The success of therapeutic measures is predicated on the rapid and precise diagnosis of the infection. We compared three rapid influenza immunoassay (RIIA) kits for the diagnosis of influenza virus A and B using 178 respiratory specimens submitted for routine testing. BD Directigen Flu A+B (Directigen), Directigen EZ Flu A+B (EZ), and NOW Flu A NOW Flu B (NOW; Binax) tests had comparable combined influenza virus A and B specificities, varying from 94 to 98%. In contrast, the sensitivity of EZ was significantly lower (39%) than that of NOW (76%) and marginally lower than that of Directigen (56%). The differences in sensitivity were most evident in patients who were >9 years old (Directigen, 53%; EZ, 32%; and NOW, 69%). Among specimens, bronchoalveolar lavage fluids yielded the most discrepant results, with sensitivities varying from 0 (EZ) to 100% (NOW), followed by nasopharyngeal swabs (sensitivities of 27 to 100%) and nasal washes (50 to 81%). The Directigen kit format allowed for faster completion but more cumbersome performance and more difficult interpretation compared with the other two kits. Overall, NOW provided the most accurate diagnoses and had user-friendly technical characteristics. However, the low overall sensitivity of the RIIAs indicates that these can be used as screening tools only.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, 4200 E 9th Ave., Campus box C227, Denver, CO 80220. Phone: (303) 315-4624. Fax: (303) 315-1787. E-mail: Adriana.Weinberg{at}uchsc.edu.

Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, March 2005, p. 367-370, Vol. 12, No. 3
1071-412X/05/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/CDLI.12.3.367-370.2005
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. Infect. Immun.
J. Clin. Microbiol. J. Virol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 2005 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.