Developing a flu readiness plan

Many utilize web-based data sources such as Internet search frequencies and electronic health records (EHRs),4 and they generate outputs such as influenza epidemic detection, peak timing prediction, and peak intensity prediction.5 Optimizing testing protocols Developing an optimal flu readiness plan involves more than allocating staff and stocking a sufficient number of tests to meet anticipated demand. In the categories of sensitivity and specificity, viral culture and nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) provide the best performance.6 While antigen-based Rapid Influenza Diagnostic Tests (RIDTs) have been widely used, their relatively low sensitivity (about 50 percent in some studies) compelled the FDA in 2017 to reclassify them from Class I to Class II devices with special controls.7 The agency put the special controls in place for RIDT manufacturers to increase sensitivity and undergo annual strain testing.8 The higher sensitivity and specificity of NAAT, which is now available in CLIA-waived settings for flu testing, can also eliminate the need for laboratory confirmation of negative results. [...]recently updated clinical practice guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recommend the use of rapid molecular assays over RIDTs or antigen-based tests in outpatient settings to improve detection of influenza virus infection.9 Turnaround time. Because of their high sensitivity, viral culture and lab-based polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing are often used in tandem to determine circulating influenza strains and define subtypes. [...]normal turnaround time (TAT) for these lab-based tests is 48 hours or more. Because antiviral therapies must typically be initiated within 48 hours of onset of clinical symptoms for the patient to receive optimal benefit, labs need to deliver a faster time to result.