Performance evaluation of Automated Fluorescent Immunoassay System ROTA and NORO for detection of rotavirus and norovirus: A comparative study of assay performance with RIDASCREEN(R)Rotavirus and Norovirus

Background The Automated Fluorescent Immunoassay System ROTA (AFIAS-Rota) and NORO (AFIAS-Noro) assays (Boditech Med Inc.) are newly developed diagnostic tests for rotavirus and norovirus infections. Methods Performance of AFIAS-Rota/Noro assays was evaluated in comparison with RIDASCREEN(R)Rotavirus and Norovirus ELISA kits (R-Biopharm) using clinical stool samples submitted from November 2018 to January 2019. Multiplex real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction was used as reference method. Results A total of 256 clinical specimens were analyzed. AFIAS-Rota and RIDASCREEN Rotavirus had almost perfect agreement (Kappa value = 0.95), and substantial agreement was observed between AFIAS-Noro and RIDASCREEN Norovirus (Kappa value = 0.80). For detection of rotavirus, AFIAS and RIDASCREEN assays showed satisfactory diagnostic sensitivity (100% and 97.8%, respectively) and specificity (99.5% and 99.1%). For detection of norovirus, the RIDASCREEN assay showed significantly higher sensitivity than the AFIAS-Noro (86.0% and 66.0%, respectively;P = .002). Analytic specificity of AFIAS-Rota/Noro assays showed no cross-reactivity against any other bacteria (14 strains) or viruses (2 strains). Hands-on time (6 minutes) and turnaround time (26 minutes) required to perform AFIAS assays were much shorter than those required for RIDASCREEN assays (20 and 150 minutes, respectively). Conclusion The AFIAS-Rota/Noro assays showed overall excellent agreement with the RIDASCREEN assays. Although the AFIAS-Noro assay exhibited lower sensitivity than the RIDASCREEN Norovirus assay for detection of norovirus, the AFIAS-Rota/Noro assays could be useful as a rapid initial screening test in clinical laboratories due to its convenience and rapid turnaround time.

Automated summary

The performance of AFIAS-Rota and AFIAS-Noro assays showed excellent agreement with the RIDASCREEN assays. While AFIAS-Noro exhibited lower sensitivity for detecting norovirus compared to RIDASCREEN Norovirus, the AFIAS assays had significantly shorter hands-on time and turnaround time, making them suitable for rapid initial screening in clinical laboratories.