Cepheid® Xpert流感检测系统与罗氏实时流感A/H1N1检测套装用于检测甲型H1N1流感的比较。
Comparison of Cepheid® Xpert Flu and Roche RealTime Ready Influenza A/H1N1 Detection Set for detection of influenza A/H1N1.
作者信息
Rabaan Ali A, Bazzi Ali M, Alshaikh Sana A
机构信息
Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory, Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare, Dhahran 31311, Saudi Arabia.
Microbiology Laboratory, Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare, Dhahran 31311, Saudi Arabia.
出版信息
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018 Apr;90(4):280-285. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2017.12.010. Epub 2017 Dec 16.
OBJECTIVE
To compare two influenza polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods.
METHODS
A total of 749 suspected MERS-CoV patients presenting at Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare, Saudi Arabia, each submitted a clinical sample for influenza A reflex testing using the on-site Cepheid® Xpert Flu assay and at the Ministry of Health laboratory by the Roche PCR assay.
RESULTS
There was 92.12% overall agreement between the two methods. Specificity of the Cepheid® Xpert Flu was 95.8% for H1N1 and 94.4% for total influenza A. Cepheid® Xpert Flu sensitivity for influenza A was 100% for younger patients (0-19-year age group) but significantly lower both for older patients (68.2% for 60-79-year and 50% for ≥80-year age groups) and overall for males compared to females (72.6% and 94.0%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
Specificity of the Cepheid® Xpert Flu test was high; however, sensitivity for total influenza A was lower particularly in males and older patients.
目的
比较两种流感聚合酶链反应（PCR）方法。
方法
共有749名疑似中东呼吸综合征冠状病毒（MERS-CoV）患者前往沙特阿拉伯的约翰霍普金斯阿美医疗中心就诊，他们每人都提交了一份临床样本，用于在现场使用赛沛®Xpert Flu检测法进行甲型流感反射试验，并在卫生部实验室采用罗氏PCR检测法进行检测。
结果
两种方法的总体一致性为92.12%。赛沛®Xpert Flu检测法对H1N1的特异性为95.8%，对甲型流感总体特异性为94.4%。赛沛®Xpert Flu检测法对甲型流感的敏感性在年轻患者（0 - 19岁年龄组）中为100%，但在老年患者中显著降低（60 - 79岁年龄组为68.2%，≥80岁年龄组为50%），并且总体上男性低于女性（分别为72.6%和94.0%）。
结论
赛沛®Xpert Flu检测法的特异性较高；然而，对甲型流感总体的敏感性较低，尤其是在男性和老年患者中。
Zotero 插件