• Marie L Landry, Sandra Cohen, and David Ferguson.
• Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, P.O. Box 208035, New Haven, CT, United States. marie.landry@yale.edu
• J. Clin. Virol. 2008 Oct 1; 43 (2): 148-51.

BackgroundRapid tests have had a significant impact on influenza diagnosis, but more accurate tests are needed for hospitalized patients who test negative by rapid methods.ObjectiveWe sought to determine the increased yield obtained from influenza RT-PCR in hospitalized patients compared to two rapid methods.Study DesignBinax NOW, cytospin-enhanced direct immunofluoroescence (DFA), and influenza A and B multiplex TaqMan RT-PCR were performed on 237 clinical samples.ResultsBinax NOW detected 70 (53.0%), cytospin-DFA detected 127 (96.2%), and TaqMan RT-PCR detected 132 (100%) influenza-positive samples. The difference in sensitivity was significant between RT-PCR and Binax NOW (p<0.0001), but not between RT-PCR and cytospin-DFA (p=0.0736). Two samples testing positive for influenza B by all three methods, tested falsely positive for influenza A by Binax. Eight true positive samples did not become reactive by Binax until 30 min, and thus were counted as negative.ConclusionsThe accuracy of real-time RT-PCR should greatly improve the diagnosis of influenza in hospitals using simple rapid flu tests, but may have a more modest impact in hospitals with expertise in cytospin-DFA. Further studies are needed to determine the effect of influenza RT-PCR on patient management and costs in hospitalized patients.

41 keywords...

hide…