BACKGROUND: Rapid and accurate rotavirus testing is important in decisions involving patient care and management. Quality assurance testing needs to be periodically performed, especially among widely used assays having a direct impact on patient care. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the current generation Kallestad Pathfinder Direct antigen Detection system (PTH), and the widely used Rotaclone(R) Rotavirus EIA Diagnostic Kit (RTC), in comparison with an improved cell culture amplification-antigen detection (CCA-Ag) isolation-based assay. STUDY DESIGN: Two hundred stool specimens (specimen stored at > or =-75 degrees C), which had been previously tested by PTH, were tested by RTC and CCA-Ag. Discordant specimens were retested by PTH, blocking assay, polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE), and/or electron microscopy (EM). RESULTS: Among 200 stool specimens, 197 were in accord by PTH, RTC and CCA-Ag. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for RTC, PTH and CCA-Ag were, 100, 99, 99, 100, 100, 99, 99, 100; and 98, 100, 100, 98%, respectively. Among five initially discordant specimens, two required a period of 10 days to affect isolation. A non-cultivatable (CCA-Ag negative) but true positive specimen, was identified as rotavirus group A serotype G2 by RT-PCR. Four true positive but discordant specimens were blocking assay negative using one or both EIA kits. CONCLUSIONS: PTH and RTC are excellent rotavirus detection system. However, PTH is more expensive (ca. $3.50 vs. $2.00 per test), mandates a slightly longer turn-around time (ca. 1 vs. 1.5 h), and necessitates slightly more hands-on manipulative/preparative steps. Blocking assay was not a reliable confirmatory test for the resolution of specimen discordancy. A combination of CCA-Ag, PAGE, EM, and/or perhaps RT-PCR, is recommended as an appropriate test panel for the resolution of discordant results during assay evaluation. The newly modified and simplified 48-h rotavirus isolation-based assay may serve as a base line methodology in laboratory evalaution studies, as a laboratory support methodology during drug/vaccine efficacy trials, or for the testing of sources (e.g., biopsy/autopsy tissues) not approved for assay by commercial rotavirus kits.
BACKGROUND: Rapid and accurate rotavirus testing is important in decisions involving patient care and management. Quality assurance testing needs to be periodically performed, especially among widely used assays having a direct impact on patient care. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the current generation Kallestad Pathfinder Direct antigen Detection system (PTH), and the widely used Rotaclone(R) Rotavirus EIA Diagnostic Kit (RTC), in comparison with an improved cell culture amplification-antigen detection (CCA-Ag) isolation-based assay. STUDY DESIGN: Two hundred stool specimens (specimen stored at > or =-75 degrees C), which had been previously tested by PTH, were tested by RTC and CCA-Ag. Discordant specimens were retested by PTH, blocking assay, polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE), and/or electron microscopy (EM). RESULTS: Among 200 stool specimens, 197 were in accord by PTH, RTC and CCA-Ag. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for RTC, PTH and CCA-Ag were, 100, 99, 99, 100, 100, 99, 99, 100; and 98, 100, 100, 98%, respectively. Among five initially discordant specimens, two required a period of 10 days to affect isolation. A non-cultivatable (CCA-Ag negative) but true positive specimen, was identified as rotavirus group A serotype G2 by RT-PCR. Four true positive but discordant specimens were blocking assay negative using one or both EIA kits. CONCLUSIONS:PTH and RTC are excellent rotavirus detection system. However, PTH is more expensive (ca. $3.50 vs. $2.00 per test), mandates a slightly longer turn-around time (ca. 1 vs. 1.5 h), and necessitates slightly more hands-on manipulative/preparative steps. Blocking assay was not a reliable confirmatory test for the resolution of specimen discordancy. A combination of CCA-Ag, PAGE, EM, and/or perhaps RT-PCR, is recommended as an appropriate test panel for the resolution of discordant results during assay evaluation. The newly modified and simplified 48-h rotavirus isolation-based assay may serve as a base line methodology in laboratory evalaution studies, as a laboratory support methodology during drug/vaccine efficacy trials, or for the testing of sources (e.g., biopsy/autopsy tissues) not approved for assay by commercial rotavirus kits.
Authors: Slavica Mijatovic-Rustempasic; Ka Ian Tam; Tara K Kerin; Jamie M Lewis; Rashi Gautam; Osbourne Quaye; Jon R Gentsch; Michael D Bowen Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2013-07-12 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Steven M Lipson; Robert E Gordon; Fatma S Ozen; Laina Karthikeyan; Nicolas Kirov; Guenther Stotzky Journal: Food Environ Virol Date: 2011-03-16 Impact factor: 2.778