Department of Laboratory Medicine, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
J Med Virol. 2020 Aug;92(8):1040-1046. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25626. Epub 2019 Nov 18.
We evaluated the performance of new high-throughput digital lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) detecting influenza antigens and compared them with those of the widely used digital LFIA and the rapid nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT). We tested 199 clinical nasopharyngeal (nasal) swab samples using three LFIA tests (BD Veritor Plus, STANDARD F Influenza A/B FIA, and ichroma TRIAS) and the rapid NAAT (ID NOW Influenza A & B2). Agreements and clinical performances (sensitivity and specificity) were evaluated based on the results of reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and verification panel. The agreement of each test with RT-PCR was moderate to almost perfect. The sensitivity of ID NOW was significantly higher than that of LFIAs (P = .0005, .0044, and .0026 for influenza A and P = .0044, .0026, and .0044 for influenza B, respectively). The specificities were not significantly different between the four tests (P > .05). However, the reference panel suggests that ichroma TRIAS test is more sensitive than the other two LFIA tests. All three LFIA assays performed similarly with no false positives against influenza A. For influenza B, ichroma TRIAS had 2 of 166 false positives whereas there were no false positives for the other two LFIA tests. Influenza antigen digital LFIAs have advantages in terms of the workflow when simultaneous tests are required. Rapid NAAT has higher sensitivity, while new antigen LFIAs are efficient and high-throughput. It is recommended that users select appropriate methods and algorithms according to the number of specimens and laboratory conditions in each clinical laboratory.
我们评估了新的高通量数字侧向流动免疫分析(LFIAs)检测流感抗原的性能,并将其与广泛使用的数字 LFIA 和快速核酸扩增测试(NAAT)进行了比较。我们使用三种 LFIA 测试(BD Veritor Plus、STANDARD F Influenza A/B FIA 和 ichroma TRIAS)和快速 NAAT(ID NOW Influenza A & B2)测试了 199 份临床鼻咽(鼻)拭子样本。根据逆转录-聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)和验证面板的结果,评估了协议和临床性能(敏感性和特异性)。每个测试与 RT-PCR 的一致性为中度至几乎完美。ID NOW 的敏感性明显高于 LFIA(流感 A 分别为 P=0.0005、0.0044 和 0.0026,流感 B 为 P=0.0044、0.0026 和 0.0044)。四项测试的特异性无显著差异(P>0.05)。然而,参考面板表明,ichroma TRIAS 测试比其他两种 LFIA 测试更敏感。三种 LFIA 检测方法的性能相似,对流感 A 均无假阳性。对于流感 B,ichroma TRIAS 有 166 个假阳性中的 2 个,而其他两种 LFIA 检测方法均无假阳性。当需要同时进行测试时,流感抗原数字 LFIA 具有工作流程优势。快速 NAAT 具有更高的敏感性,而新型抗原 LFIA 则高效、高通量。建议用户根据每个临床实验室的标本数量和实验室条件选择合适的方法和算法。