BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of an enterovirus infection may be achieved through direct virus detection from fecal or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples by virus isolation or PCR. Serologically, a significant rise in antibody titer may be detected and different enteroviral types can be differentiated using the neutralization assay. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We investigated the contribution of these different laboratory parameters to the diagnosis of enterovirus infections occurring in the Frankfurt am Main area during the years 1997 to 1999, including an echovirus 30 outbreak in a group of children with aseptic meningitis in 1997. Samples were referred from 1,013 patients; virus isolation was attempted from 579 CSF specimens and from 400 stool samples. 208 CSF samples were tested by PCR. RESULTS: During the echovirus 30 outbreak we identified 22.3% of samples as positive, almost exclusively echovirus 30. In 1998 only 7.1% of samples were positive and a rather broad range of agents was isolated. In 1999 10.4% were positive, predominantly coxsackie B5 and echovirus 11. We could show that in acute enterovirus infections, virus detection by cell cuLture and PCR is superior to serological methods (neutralization assay and IgM assay). For virus isolation, there was a higher rate of positives from stool compared to CSF (1997: 27.8% versus 25%; 1998: 14.4% versus 3%; 1999: 17.9% versus 8.5%). When comparing PCR and virus isolation from the CSF, the former yielded a higher rate of positive results but was not clearly superior to virus isolation from CSF. CONCLUSION: The recommended method for the diagnosis of acute enterovirus infections is virus isolation from feces. In cases of suspected aseptic meningitis virus isolation and PCR are valuable for the direct detection of virus in CSF.
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of an enterovirus infection may be achieved through direct virus detection from fecal or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples by virus isolation or PCR. Serologically, a significant rise in antibody titer may be detected and different enteroviral types can be differentiated using the neutralization assay. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We investigated the contribution of these different laboratory parameters to the diagnosis of enterovirus infections occurring in the Frankfurt am Main area during the years 1997 to 1999, including an echovirus 30 outbreak in a group of children with aseptic meningitis in 1997. Samples were referred from 1,013 patients; virus isolation was attempted from 579 CSF specimens and from 400 stool samples. 208 CSF samples were tested by PCR. RESULTS: During the echovirus 30 outbreak we identified 22.3% of samples as positive, almost exclusively echovirus 30. In 1998 only 7.1% of samples were positive and a rather broad range of agents was isolated. In 1999 10.4% were positive, predominantly coxsackie B5 and echovirus 11. We could show that in acute enterovirus infections, virus detection by cell cuLture and PCR is superior to serological methods (neutralization assay and IgM assay). For virus isolation, there was a higher rate of positives from stool compared to CSF (1997: 27.8% versus 25%; 1998: 14.4% versus 3%; 1999: 17.9% versus 8.5%). When comparing PCR and virus isolation from the CSF, the former yielded a higher rate of positive results but was not clearly superior to virus isolation from CSF. CONCLUSION: The recommended method for the diagnosis of acute enterovirus infections is virus isolation from feces. In cases of suspected aseptic meningitis virus isolation and PCR are valuable for the direct detection of virus in CSF.
Authors: E D Carrol; M B J Beadsworth; N Jenkins; L Ratcliffe; I Ashton; B Crowley; F J Nye; N J Beeching Journal: Postgrad Med J Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 2.401