RESUMEN
Although infections with the novel pandemic 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus (A/H1N1/2009) appeared to be relatively mild during the first summer of circulation ('off season'), there has been significant morbidity and hospitalization and several fatal cases. Thus, rapid detection of A/H1N1/2009 is crucial for efficient treatment and infection control measures. In contrast to seasonal influenza, where point-of-care (POC) rapid antigen tests and direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) staining ensure rapid detection, diagnosis of A/H1N1/2009 has so far been based on RT-PCR. This study retrospectively compared the performance of the Quidel QuickVue POC test, DFA staining and virus isolation with that of RT-PCR for A/H1N1/2009 detection in 526 respiratory specimens collected during the first wave of the outbreak from May to September 2009. A/H1N1/2009 was detected in 9.1% (48/526) of samples. One hundred and thirty-seven of the A/H1N1/2009 PCR-negative samples were additionally tested using a RealAccurate Respiratory RT-PCR panel, revealing other respiratory viruses (mainly entero/rhino- and adenoviruses) in 42.3% (58/137). All methods analysed detected A/H1N1/2009 with excellent specificity but different sensitivities (POC test: 18.2%; DFA staining: 38.7%; virus isolation: 45.7%). Therefore, the POC test was not suitable for diagnosis, detecting A/H1N1/2009 only if present in high concentrations (corresponding median Ct value=19.0; range=16.5-21.4). DFA staining was also able to detect A/H1N1/2009 in specimens with a lower virus concentration (median Ct value=24.0; range=16.5-29.8). Virus isolation, which was positive after a median time of 7.5 days, was too time-consuming. In summary, DFA staining is superior to POC testing and may be appropriate for patients expected to have a rather high level of virus replication. Nevertheless, in DFA-negative specimens, A/H1N1/2009 should be excluded by RT-PCR.