https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1737-3228
Figures
Abstract
Background
Rapid diagnosis of influenza is critical in preventing the spread of infection and ensuring patients quickly receive antiviral medication to reduce the severity and duration of influenza symptoms, whilst controlling the spread of the causative virus. In Japan patients are often administered anti-influenza medication following a positive rapid antigen detection test (RADT) result. However, the sensitivity of RADTs can lead to false negative results. The cobas® Influenza A/B Nucleic acid test for use on the cobas Liat® System (Liat) is a molecular point-of-care method that can provide a more sensitive alternative to RADTs for rapid influenza diagnosis and treatment.
Methods
In this prospective multicenter study, diagnostic performance of the Liat test was compared with RADTs in patients presenting with influenza-like-illness. Test performance was also assessed by time since symptom onset.
Results
Of 419 patients enrolled, 413 were evaluable for all designated tests. Most patients had type-A infection, and only one patient had influenza type B. In 413 patients, the sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) of the Liat test were 99.5% (97.2–99.9%) and 99.5% (97.4–99.9%), respectively, and were 79.7% (73.5–84.7%) and 95.4% (91.7–97.5%) for RADTs. For patients tested <12 hours from symptom onset, the Liat test had significantly higher sensitivity than RADTs (p<0.0001).
Citation: Mikamo H, Koizumi Y, Yamagishi Y, Asai N, Miyazono Y, Shinbo T, et al. (2022) Comparing the cobas Influenza A/B Nucleic acid test for use on the cobas Liat System (Liat) with rapid antigen tests for clinical management of Japanese patients at the point of care. PLoS ONE 17(10): e0276099. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276099
Editor: Benjamin M. Liu, Children’s National Hospital, George Washington University, UNITED STATES
Received: March 16, 2021; Accepted: September 20, 2022; Published: October 27, 2022
Copyright: © 2022 Mikamo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All data are available from the Dryad repository (http://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.qv9s4mwgk).
Funding: This study was funded by Roche Diagnostics KK. Dr Robbins, Ms Horie and Dr Togashi are employees of Roche Diagnostics. Dr Hirostsu, Dr Miyazono, and Dr Shinbo declare grant support from Roche Diagnostics KK.
Competing interests: Dr Robbins, Ms Horie and Dr Togashi are employees of Roche Diagnostics. Prof Mikamo declares personal fees from MSD KK, Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd and Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co. Ltd and grants from the latter two also. Dr Hirostsu, Dr Miyazono, and Dr Shinbo declare grant support from Roche Diagnostics KK. Dr Shinbo also declares non-financial support from Daiichi-Sankyo. Dr Miyazono declares grants from SHIONOGI & Co.,Ltd, grants from Taisho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, outside the submitted work.
1. Introduction
Estimates suggest that influenza causes 3–5 million infections each year leading to severe illness and up to 650,000 respiratory deaths [1]. Historically, in Japan, the consequences of influenza have led to high rates of mortality and associated encephalopathy [2–4]. As such, influenza-related hospitalization, mortality and encephalopathy are reportable to the National Epidemiological Surveillance of Infectious Diseases [5–7].
Rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) are commonly used as part of influenza diagnosis in Japan, but the reported lower sensitivity of RADTs may result in false-negative diagnoses, especially in early phases of influenza infection when viral load is lower [8–12]. In order to reduce the duration and severity of influenza symptoms, whilst controlling the onward spread of the causative virus, it is common for patients to receive treatment with antiviral drugs within 48 hours of symptom onset [5, 13, 14]. Approximately 7–8 million patients are treated each year with anti-influenza drugs in Japan, 80–95% of which were administered within 48 hours of symptom onset [7]. This is in line with Japanese guidelines for the treatment of influenza [15], and may contribute to lower influenza-related mortality versus other countries [7, 16]. In Japan, outpatients are generally prescribed with anti-influenza mediation if they test positive for influenza by RADT [7]. Use of RADTs for the confirmation of influenza infection is reimbursed by the Japanese health insurance system, therefore they are widely used [17]. Furthermore, the guidelines for anti-influenza medication use from the Japanese Society for Infectious Diseases note that even with a negative test, or without a test result, patients may receive anti-influenza medication if the clinician suspects influenza [18, 19]. In other countries anti-influenza medication is usually reserved for at-risk patients e.g. young children or the elderly; however, effective use can help to prevent secondary transmission of symptomatic influenza, and future outbreaks [7, 20].
The cobas® Influenza A/B Nucleic acid test for use on the cobas Liat® System (Liat) is an FDA-cleared molecular point-of-care (POC) test which uses real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect influenza A and influenza B virus RNA in ~20 minutes [21, 22]; this test has not been reviewed or approved by MHLW in Japan. Molecular methods such as RT-PCR are standard for routine laboratory confirmation of influenza due to their high sensitivity and specificity and faster turnaround times than viral culture [23]. There is evidence that POC tests for influenza, including antigen tests, can influence clinical decision-making, and lead to fewer blood tests and chest X-rays [24]. Molecular testing in particular may be able to detect viral RNA from nasopharyngeal specimens over longer time periods, allowing greater sensitivity and more accurate diagnosis [18].
With the advent of the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, there is an urgent need to rapidly and accurately diagnose causative pathogens of influenza-like illness (ILI) due to the overlapping signs and symptoms of influenza A/B and SARS-CoV-2 infection [25]. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical performance of molecular POC testing using the Liat test versus the standard of care testing using RADTs in patients presenting with ILI during flu season in Japan.
2. Materials and methods
2.1 Study design and ethics
This was a prospective multicenter, observational study comparing the performance of the Liat influenza A/B test (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) [22] with the standard of care, RADTs, in patients with ILI and carried out between December 2018 and March 2019. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Review board at each participating center: Aichi Medical University, Nagakute, Aichi (IRB: 3021); Miyazono Naika Clinic, Tokyo; Shinbo Child Clinic, Yokohama, Kanagawa; and Hirotsu Medical Clinic, Kawasaki (all approved by Shiba-palace clinic IRB: 141941_rn-25550). This study was conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki (2013 revised Forta Reza) and the Ethical Guidelines for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (partially revised on February 28, 2017). All patients included in the study were required to provide written informed consent either themselves, or via a legally acceptable representative before sample collection.
2.2 Patients
Patients presenting with ILI at a hospital and three clinics in Japan were included in the study if they visited the hospital or clinic within 48 hours of the onset symptoms associated with ILI. ILI was defined as pyrexia of 38°C or higher or body temperature increase of 1°C or more, with at least one acute respiratory or systemic symptom (headache, chills, pain in muscles or joints, fatigue, cough, sore throat, or stuffy nose). Patients were excluded from the study if: they had used anti-influenza drugs, traditional Chinese medicines or complementary therapies for influenza within the week before their hospital/clinic visit; had participated in the study within the week before the visit; or the physician judged their inclusion was inappropriate.
2.3 Study procedures
At the patient’s first visit following inclusion into the study, their clinical information (sex, age, temperature, and influenza vaccination status), the date and time of consultation, the onset of symptoms, any respiratory or systemic symptoms and any medication prescribed were recorded. Nasopharyngeal swabs were also obtained from each subject for routine clinical use, and were taken from the opposite side of the nostril immediately after collection of influenza specimens. Swab samples were immediately suspended in universal transport medium (UTM) and 200 μL of the UTM suspension was then added to assay tubes for testing with the Liat test, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. If samples were not immediately tested with the Liat test, they were stored at 2–8°C for testing on the same day.
At the first visit, patients were given a form, on which they recorded their symptoms for 1 week. Completed forms were returned to each clinical site by mail. One week after the initial consultation, symptom duration, physical examination for symptoms, date and time of follow-up, and any other influenza medications prescribed were noted. The physicians made their final diagnosis based on information collected from the patient.
2.4 Testing
Samples were tested using an RADT, following manufacturers’ instructions as per the standard operating procedure of each study center. RADTs included were: Quick Chaser Flu A,B (Mizuho Medy Co. Ltd., Saga, Japan), BD VeritorTM System Flu A+B (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Sparks, Maryland, USA), BRIGHTPOC® FluNeo (Shionogi, Osaka, Japan), Quick NaviTM-Flu/Quick NaviTM-Flu2 (Otsuka, Chiyoda, Japan), and ImunoAce Flu (Tauns Laboratories, Inc. Shizuoka, Japan). Samples were also tested with the Liat test and results were verified by a second person at each study center. Residual samples were stored frozen at ≤-70°C in case additional testing was later required.
Samples with discordant results between the Liat test and RADTs were additionally tested using the RealStar® Influenza RT-PCR Kit 2.0 (Altona Diagnostics).
2.5 Data analysis and interpretation of results
Overall agreement between Liat test and RADTs was evaluated. Concordant samples that were both positive or both negative between the Liat test and RADTs were not further tested. Discordant results between Liat test and RADTs were then adjudicated with the RealStar assay, and the majority result was used to define the final result status.
Clinical performance was evaluated using the RealStar-adjudicated final results as the comparator to calculate sensitivity and specificity of the Liat test and RADTs with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). P-values comparing sensitivity and specificity were calculated using the 2-sample chi-square test for equal sensitivities, with continuity correction. Sensitivity and specificity of the test assays were also analyzed by time from symptom onset.
Data analyses were performed using either JMP 13.2.1 (SAS Institute Inc.) or SAS/STAT® software and in accordance with the FDA guidelines [26].
3. Results
3.1 Patients
A total of 419 patients were enrolled, of which 413 patients were evaluable for all necessary tests within the study (Fig 1). Median patient age was 13 years (range 0–86 years) and the median time to visit at the clinic or hospital was 8 hours from onset of ILI symptoms (Table 1). Most patients had type-A infection, and only one patient had influenza type B. Approximately 45% (186/413) of patients had received seasonal vaccination for influenza A/B. Additional patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Data are not reported for initial physical examination and 1-week follow-up.
Discrepant samples were tested by RealStar; invalid RS samples (N = 4) were excluded from further analysis. RADT, rapid antigen diagnostic test; RS, RealStar.
3.2 Agreement between RADTs and the Liat test
Of the 413 samples tested by RADT, 143 (34.6%) were tested using Quick Chaser Flu A,B; 61 (14.8%) using Quick Navi-Flu2; 60 (14.5%) using ImunoAce Flu; 56 (13.6%) using Quick Navi-Flu; 54 (13.1%) using BD Veritor System Flu A+B; and 39 (9.4%) using BRIGHTPOC FluNeo. In total, 156 samples were both RADT and Liat test influenza A positive. Of the 42 samples that were Liat test influenza A positive and RADT influenza A negative, 40 were confirmed positive by RealStar, one was negative by RealStar, and one was excluded from analysis for an invalid RealStar result. Of the 14 samples that were RADT influenza A positive and Liat test influenza A negative, 10 were confirmed as negative, one was positive by RealStar, and three were excluded from analysis for invalid RealStar results (Fig 1). For influenza B, one sample was positive using the Liat test, and negative with the RADTs. This sample was confirmed influenza B positive with the RealStar assay; during discrepancy testing, this sample was also confirmed influenza A positive using both RADTs and the Liat test, but influenza A negative with the RealStar assay (S1 Table). The Liat test was 99.5% (196/197) sensitive (95% CI 97.2–99.9%) and 99.5% (215/216) specific (95% CI 97.4–99.9%) for the detection of influenza A (Table 2). The Liat test was significantly more sensitive and specific than the RADTs overall sensitivity of 79.7% (95% CI 73.5%–84.7%) and specificity of 95.4% (95% CI 91.7–97.5%) for influenza A (Table 2). The specificity for influenza B was 100% (95% CI 99.1–100%) for both the Liat test and RADT, however, the sample size (n = 1) was too small for sensitivity calculations.
The RADT tests were also more sensitive in younger age groups in this study; sensitivity ranged from 87.5% (95% CI 73.2–95.8%) in children aged under 6 years, decreasing to 53.3% (95% CI 26.6–78.7%) in the over 60 age group. In comparison, the sensitivity of the Liat test ranged from 92.5% (95% CI 79.6–98.4%) in those aged under 6 years to 80.0% (95% CI 51.9–95.7%) in the over 60 age group.
3.3 Liat test performance versus symptom onset
In patients with their hospital/clinic visit <12 hours from symptom onset, the Liat test demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity (p<0.0001, 2-sample chi-square test for equal sensitivities with continuity correction). The Liat test detected 100% (127/127) of influenza-positive patients compared with 75.6% (96/127) for the RADTs, which generated 31 false negative results (Table 3). The Liat test demonstrated consistently higher sensitivity and specificity than RADTs across all three time periods (<12 hour, 12–24 hour and 24–48-hours).
3.4 Treatment for influenza
RADTs are routinely performed in patients presenting with symptoms, but the results are not required for antiviral agent administration. Anti-influenza treatments were prescribed to >50% of patients (207/413) within the study (Table 4). The most commonly prescribed antiviral was baloxavir marboxil, prescribed to 78.3% (162/207) of all patients with both a valid Liat test and RADT result. The median age of patients receiving baloxavir marboxil was 16 years. The second most commonly prescribed antiviral agent was osteltamivir; prescribed to 12.1% (25/207) of patients with a median age of 2 years. Over 90% of prescriptions for osteltamivir were for children younger than 8 years old.
4. Discussion
This study found that missed diagnosis of influenza is more likely when using RADTs compared with the Liat influenza A/B test, as RADTs were less sensitive and specific compared with the Liat test. These findings are consistent with previously published studies of RADTs, which found the tests are adequately specific, but have a poor sensitivity that can vary depending on the testing population [8–10, 12, 27, 28].
In this study, the majority of patients visiting the hospital or clinic underwent testing within 12 hours of symptom onset. For these patients, the Liat influenza A/B test was significantly more sensitive than RADTs when detecting influenza A. Beyond 12 hours from symptom onset, the Liat test was consistently more sensitive than RADTs, but these differences were not significant due to the small sample size. Previous research has demonstrated that RADT sensitivity is lower within 24 hours of symptom onset and higher between days 2–4 [29, 30]. Scheduled visits in this study were earlier in disease course than in other studies, which may have contributed to the lower sensitivity of RADTs observed. However, early assessment and diagnostic testing is reflective of ILI-management practices in Japan [31]. Further, although previous research has demonstrated high diagnostic performance of the Liat test, reported sensitivities and specificities do not always reach 100% [32, 33].
Another possible reason for discrepancies between results from RADTs and the Liat influenza A/B test could be due to the visual interpretation required for some RADTs, which can allow for error or misinterpretation [34, 35]. However, RADTs with digital readouts were also included in this study. Alternately, higher rates of false results from RADTs may be due to their operational workflow and open design that typically requires multiple handling steps and the addition of sample reagents to an open testing area, thus increasing the risk of contamination. The cobas Liat System is a fully closed system which reduces the risk of cross-contamination while preserving sample integrity [34].
To reduce the duration and severity of influenza symptoms, and help prevent secondary transmission of the virus, antiviral medication should be administered within 48 hours of symptom onset [5, 13, 36]. On the other hand, inappropriate/over-prescription of antiviral medication can increase the risk of antiviral resistance [37]. Previous studies found that triaging patients with suspected influenza using RADTs led to earlier treatment with antiviral medication [9], and this effect may be expected to increase when using a more sensitive molecular POC such as the Liat test.
In this study, the most commonly prescribed antiviral medication was baloxavir marboxil, potentially because unlike earlier drugs, this most recently approved antiviral has the advantage of a single-dose regimen [38]. A test-and-treat strategy using a more accurate PCR-based test could increase the appropriate and judicious prescription of anti-influenza medication, and may also reduce unnecessary antibiotic use that can increase the risk of antibiotic resistance and lead to common side effects [20, 39–45]. Therefore, detecting significantly more newly infected influenza patients can potentially offer greater clinical benefits for patient management and outcomes.
Since this study was conducted during the 2018–2019 influenza season prior to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the global need for high sensitivity respiratory tests has become even more critical now in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. With the current scarcity of rapid molecular tests approved for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, point-of-care testing for influenza A/B may be used by clinicians during upcoming seasons to quickly rule in or rule out influenza in patients presenting with similar respiratory symptoms. The Liat Influenza A/B test was discontinued by Roche in 2021 in response to ongoing pandemic testing needs and is replaced by Liat tests for Influenza A/B & RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) and SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B, which have demonstrated similarly high performance for detecting influenza as the Liat Influenza A/B test [22, 46–48]. The selection of highly accurate molecular POC tests for influenza A/B can aid in the differentiation and diagnosis of this disease from COVID-19, potentially reducing the need for additional tests and improving infection control by correctly identifying influenza cases for appropriate patient triage and treatment decisions.
One limitation of this study is that only the RealStar assay was used to adjudicate discrepancies between results from the Liat test and RADTs. The findings from this study may have been strengthened with additional confirmatory testing. Only testing samples with discrepant results may have limited the generalizability of this study. In addition, only one patient with influenza B was included in the study, which does not represent the expected pattern of infection. Though the participating sites were limited to Aichi, Kanagawa, and Tokyo, there were no local differences in prevalence in Japan during the 2018–2019 influenza season [49, 50] and, therefore, the study sample can be considered representative of the larger population.
5. Conclusions
Compared with RADTs that are commonly used in clinical practice in Japan, the Liat influenza A/B test has significantly greater sensitivity for the diagnosis of influenza in children and adults, particularly in the early stages of infection when antiviral treatment is most effective. This greater sensitivity can enable earlier diagnosis and delivery of treatment, and lead to potential improvements in clinical outcomes and effective infection control.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Discrepancy analysis for influenza A/B test results, N = 53.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276099.s001
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
Statistical analysis was provided by Shaowu Tang, Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, USA. The authors would also like to thank Rose Falconer of Elements Communications for medical writing support during article preparation. COBAS and LIAT are trademarks of Roche. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
References
- 1.
World Health Organization. Influenza (seasonal) factsheet 2018 [updated 06/11/2018; cited 2022 February 23]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/influenza-(seasonal).
- 2. Gu Y, Shimada T, Yasui Y, Tada Y, Kaku M, Okabe N. National surveillance of influenza-associated encephalopathy in Japan over six years, before and during the 2009–2010 influenza pandemic. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54786. Epub 2013/01/29. pmid:23355899; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3552950.
- 3. Okumura A, Nakagawa S, Kawashima H, Morichi S, Muguruma T, Saito O, et al. Severe form of encephalopathy associated with 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in Japan. J Clin Virol. 2013;56(1):25–30. Epub 2012/10/31. pmid:23107158.
- 4. Yokomichi H, Mochizuki M, Lee JJ, Kojima R, Yokoyama T, Yamagata Z. Incidence of hospitalisation for severe complications of influenza virus infection in Japanese patients between 2012 and 2016: a cross-sectional study using routinely collected administrative data. BMJ open. 2019;9(1):e024687. Epub 2019/02/21. pmid:30782739; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6340484.
- 5. Hsu J, Santesso N, Mustafa R, Brozek J, Chen YL, Hopkins JP, et al. Antivirals for treatment of influenza: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(7):512–24. Epub 2012/03/01. pmid:22371849; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6679687.
- 6. Okabe N, Yamashita K, Taniguchi K, Inouye S. Influenza surveillance system of Japan and acute encephalitis and encephalopathy in the influenza season. Pediatr Int. 2000;42(2):187–91. Epub 2000/05/11. pmid:10804740.
- 7. Zaraket H, Saito R. Japanese surveillance systems and treatment for influenza. Current treatment options in infectious diseases. 2016;8(4):311–28. Epub 2016/12/31. pmid:28035195; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5155020.
- 8. Chartrand C, Leeflang MM, Minion J, Brewer T, Pai M. Accuracy of rapid influenza diagnostic tests: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(7):500–11. Epub 2012/03/01. pmid:22371850.
- 9. González-Del Vecchio M CP, de Egea V, Rodríguez-Borlado A, Martos C, Padilla B, Rodríguez-Sanchez B, et al. An algorithm to diagnose influenza infection: evaluating the clinical importance and impact on hospital costs of screening with rapid antigen detection tests. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2015;34(6):1081–5. pmid:25620782
- 10. Green DA, StGeorge K. Rapid antigen tests for influenza: rationale and significance of the FDA reclassification. J Clin Microbiol. 2018;56(10). Epub 2018/06/15. pmid:29899007; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6156320.
- 11. Seki Y, Oda Y, Sugaya N. Very high sensitivity of a rapid influenza diagnostic test in adults and elderly individuals within 48 hours of the onset of illness. PloS One. 2020;15(5):e0231217-e. pmid:32374728.
- 12. Uyeki TM, Prasad R, Vukotich C, Stebbins S, Rinaldo CR, Ferng YH, et al. Low sensitivity of rapid diagnostic test for influenza. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48(9):e89–92. Epub 2009/03/28. pmid:19323628.
- 13. Heinonen S, Silvennoinen H, Lehtinen P, Vainionpaa R, Vahlberg T, Ziegler T, et al. Early oseltamivir treatment of influenza in children 1–3 years of age: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51(8):887–94. Epub 2010/09/08. pmid:20815736.
- 14. Williams LO, Kupka NJ, Schmaltz SP, Barrett S, Uyeki TM, Jernigan DB. Rapid influenza diagnostic test use and antiviral prescriptions in outpatient settings pre- and post-2009 H1N1 pandemic. J Clin Virol. 2014;60(1):27–33. Epub 2014/03/19. pmid:24630481.
- 15.
The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases. Recommendations of the Japanese society of infectious diseases—use of anti-influenza drugs 2019 [cited 2022 February 23]. Available from: https://www.kansensho.or.jp/modules/guidelines/index.php?content_id=37.
- 16. Viasus D, Cordero E, Rodriguez-Bano J, Oteo JA, Fernandez-Navarro A, Ortega L, et al. Changes in epidemiology, clinical features and severity of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 pneumonia in the first post-pandemic influenza season. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18(3):E55–62. Epub 2012/01/24. pmid:22264321.
- 17. Sugaya N. Widespread use of neuraminidase inhibitors in Japan. J Infect Chemother. 2011;17(5):595–601. Epub 2011/08/19. pmid:21850418.
- 18.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Information on rapid molecular assays, RT-PCR, and other molecular assays for diagnosis of influenza virus infection 2019 [cited 2021 September 17]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/molecular-assays.htm.
- 19. Mikasa K, Aoki N, Aoki Y, Abe S, Iwata S, Ouchi K, et al. JAID/JSC Guidelines for the Treatment of Respiratory Infectious Diseases: The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases/Japanese Society of Chemotherapy—The JAID/JSC Guide to Clinical Management of Infectious Disease/Guideline-preparing Committee Respiratory Infectious Disease WG. J Infect Chemother. 2016;22(Suppl 7):S1–s65. Epub 2016/06/19. pmid:27317161; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7128733.
- 20. Doll MK, Winters N, Boikos C, Kraicer-Melamed H, Gore G, Quach C. Safety and effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza treatment, prophylaxis, and outbreak control: a systematic review of systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017;72(11):2990–3007. Epub 2017/09/30. pmid:28961794.
- 21.
Food and Drug Administration. FDA Decision Summary KT191729: cobas Influenza A/B Nucleic acid test for use on the cobas liat system 2019 [cited 2022 February 23]. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/reviews/K191729.pdf.
- 22.
Roche Diagnostics. cobas® Influenza A/B Nucleic acid test for use on the cobas® Liat® System [package insert]. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. 2018.
- 23. Vos LM, Bruning AHL, Reitsma JB, Schuurman R, Riezebos-Brilman A, Hoepelman AIM, et al. Rapid molecular tests for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and other respiratory viruses: a systematic review of diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact studies. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69(7):1243–53. Epub 2019/01/29. pmid:30689772; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7108200.
- 24. Lee JJ, Verbakel JY, Goyder CR, Ananthakumar T, Tan PS, Turner PJ, et al. The clinical utility of point-of-care tests for influenza in ambulatory care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2019;69(1):24–33. pmid:30285232.
- 25. Ding Q, Lu P, Fan Y, Xia Y, Liu M. The clinical characteristics of pneumonia patients coinfected with 2019 novel coronavirus and influenza virus in Wuhan, China. J Med Virol. 2020. Epub 2020/03/21. pmid:32196707; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7228290.
- 26.
US Food and Drug Administration. Statistical guidance on reporting results from studies evaluating diagnostic tests 2007 [cited 2019 August 19]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/statistical-guidance-reporting-results-studies-evaluating-diagnostic-tests-guidance-industry-and-fda.
- 27. Avril E, Lacroix S, Vrignaud B, Moreau-Klein A, Coste-Burel M, Launay E, et al. Variability in the diagnostic performance of a bedside rapid diagnostic influenza test over four epidemic seasons in a pediatric emergency department. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016;85(3):334–7. Epub 2016/05/04. pmid:27139081.
- 28. Busson L, Mahadeb B, De Foor M, Vandenberg O, Hallin M. Contribution of a rapid influenza diagnostic test to manage hospitalized patients with suspected influenza. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017;87(3):238–42. Epub 2016/12/13. pmid:27939284.
- 29. Hata A, Asada J, Mizumoto H, Uematsu A, Takahara T, Iida M, et al. Appropriate use of rapid diagnostic testing for influenza. Kansenshogaku Zasshi. 2004;78(9):846–52. Epub 2004/10/29. pmid:15508719.
- 30. Landry ML. Diagnostic tests for influenza infection. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2011;23(1):91–7. Epub 2010/12/15. pmid:21150446.
- 31. Tsuzuki S, Yoshihara K. The characteristics of influenza-like illness management in Japan. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):568. pmid:32345248
- 32. Kanwar N, Michael J, Doran K, Montgomery E, Selvarangan R. Comparison of the ID Now influenza A & B 2, cobas influenza A/B, and Xpert Xpress Flu point-of-care nucleic acid amplification tests for influenza A/B virus detection in children. J Clin Microbiol. 2020;58(3). Epub 2020/01/17. pmid:31941689; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7041562.
- 33. Maignan M, Viglino D, Hablot M, Termoz Masson N, Lebeugle A, Collomb Muret R, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of a rapid RT-PCR assay for point-of-care detection of influenza A/B virus at emergency department admission: a prospective evaluation during the 2017/2018 influenza season. PLoS One. 2019;14(5):e0216308. Epub 2019/05/08. pmid:31063477.
- 34. Phillips JE, McCune S, Fantz CR, Engstrom-Melnyk J, Osiecki JC. Assay integrity of a PCR influenza point-of-care test remains following artificial system contamination. J Appl Lab Med. 2019;4(3):422–6. Epub 2019/10/30. pmid:31659080.
- 35. Ryu SW, Suh IB, Ryu SM, Shin KS, Kim HS, Kim J, et al. Comparison of three rapid influenza diagnostic tests with digital readout systems and one conventional rapid influenza diagnostic test. J Clin Lab Anal. 2018;32(2). Epub 2017/04/14. pmid:28407318; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6817280.
- 36. Fry AM, Goswami D, Nahar K, Sharmin AT, Rahman M, Gubareva L, et al. Efficacy of oseltamivir treatment started within 5 days of symptom onset to reduce influenza illness duration and virus shedding in an urban setting in Bangladesh: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14(2):109–18. Epub 2013/11/26. pmid:24268590.
- 37.
World Health Organization. Antimicrobial resistance 2021 [cited 2022 23 February]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance.
- 38. Dufrasne F. Baloxavir marboxil: an original new drug against fnfluenza. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2021;15(1). Epub 2022/01/22. pmid:35056085; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8779813.
- 39. Hayden FG, Osterhaus AD, Treanor JJ, Fleming DM, Aoki FY, Nicholson KG, et al. Efficacy and safety of the neuraminidase inhibitor zanamivir in the treatment of influenzavirus infections N Engl J Med. 1997;337(13):874–80. Epub 1997/09/26. pmid:9302301.
- 40. Hedrick JA, Barzilai A, Behre U, Henderson FW, Hammond J, Reilly L, et al. Zanamivir for treatment of symptomatic influenza A and B infection in children five to twelve years of age: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2000;19(5):410–7. Epub 2000/05/20. pmid:10819336.
- 41. Monto AS, Fleming DM, Henry D, de Groot R, Makela M, Klein T, et al. Efficacy and safety of the neuraminidase inhibitor zanamivirin in the treatment of influenza A and B virus infections. J Infect Dis. 1999;180(2):254–61. Epub 1999/07/09. pmid:10395837.
- 42. Treanor JJ, Hayden FG, Vrooman PS, Barbarash R, Bettis R, Riff D, et al. Efficacy and safety of the oral neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir in treating acute influenza: a randomized controlled trial. US Oral Neuraminidase Study Group. JAMA. 2000;283(8):1016–24. Epub 2000/03/04. pmid:10697061.
- 43. Whitley R, Laughlin A, Carson S, Mitha E, Tellier G, Stich M, et al. Single dose peramivir for the treatment of acute seasonal influenza: integrated analysis of efficacy and safety from two placebo-controlled trials. Antivir Ther. 2015;20(7):709–19. Epub 2014/10/16. pmid:25318121.
- 44. Whitley RJ, Hayden FG, Reisinger KS, Young N, Dutkowski R, Ipe D, et al. Oral oseltamivir treatment of influenza in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2001;20(2):127–33. Epub 2001/02/27. pmid:11224828.
- 45. Dale AP, Ebell M, McKay B, Handel A, Forehand R, Dobbin K. Impact of a rapid point of care test for influenza on guideline consistent care and antibiotic use. J Am Board Fam Med. 2019;32(2):226–33. Epub 2019/03/10. pmid:30850459.
- 46.
Roche Diagnostics. cobas® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B Nucleic acid test for use on the cobas® Liat® System [package insert]. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. 2020;(v2.0).
- 47.
Roche Diagnostics. cobas® Influenza A/B & RSV Nucleic acid test for use on the cobas® Liat® System [package insert]. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. 2019.
- 48. Zhen W, Manji R, Smith E, Wuitschick J, Lucic D, Berry GJ. Evaluation of the Alinity m Resp-4-Plex Assay for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, influenza A virus, influenza B virus, and respiratory syncytial virus. Microbiol Spectr. 2022;10(1):e0109021. Epub 2022/02/03. pmid:35107357; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8809329.
- 49.
National Institute of Infectious Diseases. Isolation/detection of influence virus in Japan, 2018/19 season 2018 [cited 2022 February 02]. Available from: https://www.niid.go.jp/niid/images/iasr/arc/gv/1819/data1819.1j.pdf.
- 50.
National Institute of Infectious Diseases Japan. Infectious Disease Surveillance Center: Influenza level pandemic map 2018 [cited 2022 February 02]. Available from: https://nesid4g.mhlw.go.jp/Hasseidoko/Levelmap/flu/2018_2019/trend.html.