Diagnostic Accuracy of an At-Home, Rapid Self-Test for Influenza (Preprint)

Author:

Geyer Rachel E.ORCID,Kotnik Jack HenryORCID,Lyon VictoriaORCID,Brandstetter Elisabeth,Zigman Suchsland Monica,Han Peter D.,Graham Chelsey,Ilcisin Misja,Kim Ashley E.,Chu Helen Y.,Nickerson Deborah A.,Starita Lea M.,Bedford Trevor,Lutz Barry,Thompson Matthew J.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) for influenza used by individuals at home could potentially expand access to testing and reduce the impact of influenza on health systems. Improving access to testing could lead to earlier diagnosis following symptom onset, allowing more rapid interventions on those who test positive, including behavioral changes to minimize spread. However, the accuracy of RDTs for influenza has not been determined among self-testing populations.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the accuracy of an influenza RDT conducted at home by lay users with acute respiratory illness (ARI), compared to a self-collected sample conducted by the same individual mailed to a laboratory for reference testing.

METHODS

A comparative accuracy study of an at-home influenza RDT (Ellume, Brisbane, Qld, Australia) in a convenience sample of individuals experiencing ARI symptoms. Participants were enrolled in February and March 2020, from the greater Seattle region, Washington, USA. Participants were mailed the influenza RDT and reference sample collection materials, which they completed and returned for RT-qPCR influenza testing in a central laboratory. We explored the impact of age, influenza type, duration, and severity of symptoms on RDT accuracy, viral CT (cycle threshold), and a marker of human DNA (RNase P).

RESULTS

605 participants completed all study steps and were included in our analysis, of whom 87 (14.4%) tested positive for influenza by RT-qPCR (70 influenza A, 17 influenza B). The overall sensitivity and specificity of the RDT compared to the reference test were 61% (95%CI 50-71) and 95% (95%CI 93-97), respectively. Among individuals with symptom onset ≤72 hours, sensitivity was 63% (95%CI 48-76) and specificity was 94% (95% CI 91-97), while for those with duration > 72 hours, sensitivity and specificity were 58% (95%CI 41-74) and 96% (95%CI 93-98), respectively. Viral load on reference swabs was negatively correlated with symptom onset, while quantities of the endogenous marker gene RNase P did not differ between PCR positive/negative groups, age groups, or influenza subtypes. The RDT did not have higher sensitivity or specificity among those who reported more severe illness.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity and specificity of the self-test was comparable to that of influenza RDTs used in clinical settings. False negative self-test results were more common when the test was used after 72 hours of symptom onset, but were not related to inadequate swab collection, or severity of illness. Deployment of home tests may provide a valuable tool to support management of influenza and other respiratory infections.

Publisher

JMIR Publications Inc.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3