Evaluation and verification of the nanosphere Verigene RV+ assay for detection of influenza A/B and H1/H3 subtyping

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Han Jin Cho ; Jin Woo Jang ; Sun Young Ko ; Sung Hyuk Choi ; Chae Seung Lim and Seong Soo A. An
• 关键词：molecular ; diagnostic ; influenza
• 刊名：Journal of Medical Virology
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：January 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：87
• 期：1
• 页码：18-24
• 全文大小：75K
• ISSN：1096-9071

文摘

With the emerging risks of drug-resistant viruses and pandemic influenza, rapid and accurate detection of influenza viruses and determination of their subtypes is a crucial component of patient management. This study evaluated the performance of the Verigene respiratory virus plus nucleic acid (Verigene RV+) test for the detection of influenza A/B and subtype determination compared it with conventional molecular methods. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from 228 patients with influenza-like illness (influenza A (n = 67), 2009-H1N1 (n = 21), influenza B (n = 80), mixed A & B (n = 3), mixed RSV A and influenza (n = 3), and influenza-negative (n = 54)). Patient samples were analyzed by Influenza A/B one-step typing (Seegene, Seoul, Korea), Seeplex RV15 ACE Detection (Seegene), Nanosphere Verigene RV+ assay (Nanosphere, Northbrrook, IL) and virus culture. Out of 228 samples, 109 (47.8%) were positive by culture, and an additional 65 (28.5%) were positive by Seeplex RV15 ACE Detection, Influenza A/B one-step typing or Nanosphere Verigene RV+ assay. In comparison tests with Seeplex RV15 ACE Detection RT-PCR, the sensitivity of the Verigene RV+ kit for detection of the influenza A, 2009-H1N1, influenza B, and mixed A & B was 97.1%, 100%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. The specificity of the Verigene RV+ was 100% for all types. The concordance between Verigene RV+ and Influenza A/B one-step typing for H1, H3, H1/H3 mixed, and 2009-H1N1 was 100% (26/26), 100% (35/35), 100% (4/4), and 100% (21/21), respectively. The Verigene RV+ assay showed acceptable sensitivity and specificity for detection and subtyping of influenza viruses compared with the conventional RT-PCR method. J. Med. Virol. 87: 18–24, 2015.