%0 Journal Article
%T Evaluation of a rapid diagnostic test, NanoSign£¿ Influenza A/B Antigen, for detection of the 2009 pandemic influenza A/H1N1 viruses
%A Gyu-Cheol Lee
%A Eun-Sung Jeon
%A Won-Shik Kim
%A Dung Le
%A Jong-Ha Yoo
%A Chom-Kyu Chong
%J Virology Journal
%D 2010
%I BioMed Central
%R 10.1186/1743-422x-7-244
%X The NanoSign£¿ Influenza A/B kit resulted in 79.4% sensitivity and 97.2% specificity compared to RT-PCR in the detection of the viruses from 1,023 specimens. In addition, the kit was able to detect two strains of novel influenza viruses, Influenza A/California/12/2009(H1N1) and clinically isolated wild-type novel influenza A/H1N1, both of which are spreading epidemically throughout the world. In addition, the correlation between NanoSign£¿ Influenza A/B test and conventional RT-PCR was approximately 94%, indicating a high concordance rate. Analytical sensitivity of the kit was approximately 73 ¡À 3.65 ng/mL of the purified viral proteins and 1.13 ¡À 0.11 hemagglutination units for the cultured virus.As the NanoSign£¿ Influenza A/B kit showed relatively high sensitivity and specificity and the good correlation with RT-PCR, it will be very useful in the early control of influenza infection and in helping physicians in making early treatment decisions.The novel influenza A/H1N1 virus has spread to most of the world's populations, and its spread has led to a pandemic alert situation [1-3]. As a result, at the end of 2009, the World Health Organization announced that the novel influenza A/H1N1 had reached pandemic status [4].A variety of different diagnostic methods can be used to detect the presence of influenza viruses in respiratory specimens such as nasopharyngeal aspirates, including direct antigen detection tests, virus isolation in cell cultures, and detection of influenza-specific RNA by real-time reverse transcriptase (RT)-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) [5-10]. Albeit the gold standard for the diagnosis of influenza is virus isolation using chicken embryos or tissue culture method, it has the shortcomings such as time consuming and labor intensiveness; it takes between two to 14 days before results are available. Detection of virus-infected cells in nasopharyngeal secretions by direct or indirect immunofluorescent staining is widely used, but it is a difficult and t
%U http://www.virologyj.com/content/7/1/244