Comparison of three rapid influenza diagnostic tests with digital readout systems and one conventional rapid influenza diagnostic test

Ryu, Sook Won; Suh, In Bum; Ryu, Se‐Min; Shin, Kyu Sung; Kim, Hyon‐Suk; Kim, Juwon; Uh, Young; Yoon, Kap Jun; Lee, Jong‐Han

BACKGROUND: Rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) show variable sensitivities in clinical settings. We aimed to compare three digital RIDTs and one conventional RIDT. METHODS: We assessed 218 nasopharyngeal swabs from patients between neonates and 90 years old in 2016. Three digital RIDTs were BUDDI, Sofia Influenza A+B Fluorescence Immunoassay, Veritor System Flu A+B assay. One conventional test was the SD Bioline Influenza Ag A/B/A(H1N1/2009). All test results were compared with those from the Anyplex Flu A/B Typing Real‐time Detection real‐time PCR. The four RIDTs were tested with diluted solutions from the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) to compare lower detection limit. Cross‐reactivity of four RIDTs within other respiratory viruses was identified. RESULTS: For influenza A, BUDDI, Sofia, Veritor, and Bioline showed 87.7%, 94.5%, 87.7%, and 72.6% sensitivity, and 100%, 97.7%, 96.5%, and 100% specificity. For influenza B, BUDDI, Sofia, Veritor, and Bioline showed 81.7%, 91.7%, 81.7%, and 78.3% sensitivity, and 100%, 95.3%, 100%, and 100% specificity, respectively. Each RIDT could detect diluted NIBSC solution, according to the level of dilution and specific influenza subtypes. Cross‐reactivity of four RIDTs with other respiratory viruses was not noted. CONCLUSIONS: Sofia showed the highest sensitivity for influenza A and B detection. BUDDI and Veritor showed higher detection sensitivity than a conventional RIDT for influenza A detection, but similar results for influenza B detection. Further study is needed to compare the test performance of RIDTs according to specific, prevalent influenza subtypes.