BACKGROUND: An outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) began in Canada in February 2003. The initial diagnosis of SARS was based on clinical and epidemiological criteria. During the outbreak, molecular and serologic tests for the SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) became available. However, without a "gold standard," it was impossible to determine the usefulness of these tests. We describe how these tests were used during the first phase of the SARS outbreak in Toronto and offer some recommendations that may be useful if SARS returns. METHODS: We examined the results of all diagnostic laboratory tests used in 117 patients admitted to hospitals in Toronto who met the Health Canada criteria for suspect or probable SARS. Focusing on tests for SARS-CoV, we attempted to determine the optimal specimen types and timing of specimen collection. RESULTS: Diagnostic test results for SARS-CoV were available for 110 of the 117 patients. SARS-CoV was detected by means of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in at least one specimen in 59 (54.1%) of 109 patients. Serologic test results of convalescent samples were positive in 50 (96.2%) of 52 patients for whom paired serum samples were collected during the acute and convalescent phases of the illness. Of the 110 patients, 78 (70.9%) had specimens that tested positive by means of RT-PCR, serologic testing or both methods. The proportion of RT-PCR test results that were positive was similar between patients who met the criteria for suspect SARS (50.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 38.4%-63.2%) and those who met the criteria for probable SARS (58.0%, 95% CI 44.2%-70.7%). SARS-CoV was detected in nasopharyngeal swabs in 33 (32.4%) of 102 patients, in stool specimens in 19 (63.3%) of 30 patients, and in specimens from the lower respiratory tract in 10 (58.8%) of 17 patients. INTERPRETATION: These findings suggest that the rapid diagnostic tests in use at the time of the initial outbreak lack sufficient sensitivity to be used clinically to rule out SARS. As tests for SARS-CoV continue to be optimized, evaluation of the clinical presentation and elucidation of a contact history must remain the cornerstone of SARS diagnosis. In patients with SARS, specimens taken from the lower respiratory tract and stool samples test positive by means of RT-PCR more often than do samples taken from other areas.
BACKGROUND: An outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) began in Canada in February 2003. The initial diagnosis of SARS was based on clinical and epidemiological criteria. During the outbreak, molecular and serologic tests for the SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) became available. However, without a "gold standard," it was impossible to determine the usefulness of these tests. We describe how these tests were used during the first phase of the SARS outbreak in Toronto and offer some recommendations that may be useful if SARS returns. METHODS: We examined the results of all diagnostic laboratory tests used in 117 patients admitted to hospitals in Toronto who met the Health Canada criteria for suspect or probable SARS. Focusing on tests for SARS-CoV, we attempted to determine the optimal specimen types and timing of specimen collection. RESULTS: Diagnostic test results for SARS-CoV were available for 110 of the 117 patients. SARS-CoV was detected by means of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in at least one specimen in 59 (54.1%) of 109 patients. Serologic test results of convalescent samples were positive in 50 (96.2%) of 52 patients for whom paired serum samples were collected during the acute and convalescent phases of the illness. Of the 110 patients, 78 (70.9%) had specimens that tested positive by means of RT-PCR, serologic testing or both methods. The proportion of RT-PCR test results that were positive was similar between patients who met the criteria for suspect SARS (50.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 38.4%-63.2%) and those who met the criteria for probable SARS (58.0%, 95% CI 44.2%-70.7%). SARS-CoV was detected in nasopharyngeal swabs in 33 (32.4%) of 102 patients, in stool specimens in 19 (63.3%) of 30 patients, and in specimens from the lower respiratory tract in 10 (58.8%) of 17 patients. INTERPRETATION: These findings suggest that the rapid diagnostic tests in use at the time of the initial outbreak lack sufficient sensitivity to be used clinically to rule out SARS. As tests for SARS-CoV continue to be optimized, evaluation of the clinical presentation and elucidation of a contact history must remain the cornerstone of SARS diagnosis. In patients with SARS, specimens taken from the lower respiratory tract and stool samples test positive by means of RT-PCR more often than do samples taken from other areas.
Authors: Paul A Rota; M Steven Oberste; Stephan S Monroe; W Allan Nix; Ray Campagnoli; Joseph P Icenogle; Silvia Peñaranda; Bettina Bankamp; Kaija Maher; Min-Hsin Chen; Suxiong Tong; Azaibi Tamin; Luis Lowe; Michael Frace; Joseph L DeRisi; Qi Chen; David Wang; Dean D Erdman; Teresa C T Peret; Cara Burns; Thomas G Ksiazek; Pierre E Rollin; Anthony Sanchez; Stephanie Liffick; Brian Holloway; Josef Limor; Karen McCaustland; Melissa Olsen-Rasmussen; Ron Fouchier; Stephan Günther; Albert D M E Osterhaus; Christian Drosten; Mark A Pallansch; Larry J Anderson; William J Bellini Journal: Science Date: 2003-05-01 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Christian Drosten; Stephan Günther; Wolfgang Preiser; Sylvie van der Werf; Hans-Reinhard Brodt; Stephan Becker; Holger Rabenau; Marcus Panning; Larissa Kolesnikova; Ron A M Fouchier; Annemarie Berger; Ana-Maria Burguière; Jindrich Cinatl; Markus Eickmann; Nicolas Escriou; Klaus Grywna; Stefanie Kramme; Jean-Claude Manuguerra; Stefanie Müller; Volker Rickerts; Martin Stürmer; Simon Vieth; Hans-Dieter Klenk; Albert D M E Osterhaus; Herbert Schmitz; Hans Wilhelm Doerr Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-04-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Susan M Poutanen; Donald E Low; Bonnie Henry; Sandy Finkelstein; David Rose; Karen Green; Raymond Tellier; Ryan Draker; Dena Adachi; Melissa Ayers; Adrienne K Chan; Danuta M Skowronski; Irving Salit; Andrew E Simor; Arthur S Slutsky; Patrick W Doyle; Mel Krajden; Martin Petric; Robert C Brunham; Allison J McGeer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-03-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christopher M Booth; Larissa M Matukas; George A Tomlinson; Anita R Rachlis; David B Rose; Hy A Dwosh; Sharon L Walmsley; Tony Mazzulli; Monica Avendano; Peter Derkach; Issa E Ephtimios; Ian Kitai; Barbara D Mederski; Steven B Shadowitz; Wayne L Gold; Laura A Hawryluck; Elizabeth Rea; Jordan S Chenkin; David W Cescon; Susan M Poutanen; Allan S Detsky Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thomas G Ksiazek; Dean Erdman; Cynthia S Goldsmith; Sherif R Zaki; Teresa Peret; Shannon Emery; Suxiang Tong; Carlo Urbani; James A Comer; Wilina Lim; Pierre E Rollin; Scott F Dowell; Ai-Ee Ling; Charles D Humphrey; Wun-Ju Shieh; Jeannette Guarner; Christopher D Paddock; Paul Rota; Barry Fields; Joseph DeRisi; Jyh-Yuan Yang; Nancy Cox; James M Hughes; James W LeDuc; William J Bellini; Larry J Anderson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-04-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J S M Peiris; S T Lai; L L M Poon; Y Guan; L Y C Yam; W Lim; J Nicholls; W K S Yee; W W Yan; M T Cheung; V C C Cheng; K H Chan; D N C Tsang; R W H Yung; T K Ng; K Y Yuen Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-04-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Tony Mazzulli; Gabriella A Farcas; Susan M Poutanen; Barbara M Willey; Donald E Low; Jagdish Butany; Sylvia L Asa; Kevin C Kain Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: J S M Peiris; C M Chu; V C C Cheng; K S Chan; I F N Hung; L L M Poon; K I Law; B S F Tang; T Y W Hon; C S Chan; K H Chan; J S C Ng; B J Zheng; W L Ng; R W M Lai; Y Guan; K Y Yuen Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-05-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M J Espy; J R Uhl; L M Sloan; S P Buckwalter; M F Jones; E A Vetter; J D C Yao; N L Wengenack; J E Rosenblatt; F R Cockerill; T F Smith Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: L Louie; A E Simor; S Chong; K Luinstra; A Petrich; J Mahony; M Smieja; G Johnson; F Gharabaghi; R Tellier; B M Willey; S Poutanen; T Mazzulli; G Broukhanski; F Jamieson; M Louie; S Richardson Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2006-08-30 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: James B Mahony; Astrid Petrich; Lisa Louie; Xinyu Song; Sylvia Chong; Marek Smieja; Max Chernesky; Mark Loeb; Susan Richardson Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Janet Raboud; Altynay Shigayeva; Allison McGeer; Erika Bontovics; Martin Chapman; Denise Gravel; Bonnie Henry; Stephen Lapinsky; Mark Loeb; L Clifford McDonald; Marianna Ofner; Shirley Paton; Donna Reynolds; Damon Scales; Sandy Shen; Andrew Simor; Thomas Stewart; Mary Vearncombe; Dick Zoutman; Karen Green Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-05-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: George Zahariadis; Ted A Gooley; Phyllis Ryall; Christine Hutchinson; Mary I Latchford; Margaret A Fearon; Frances B Jamieson; Susan Richardson; Theodore Kuschak; Barbara Mederski Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.409
Authors: Hoe Nam Leong; Kwai Peng Chan; Ali S Khan; Lynette Oon; Su Yun Se-Thoe; Xin Lai Bai; Daniel Yeo; Yee Sin Leo; Brenda Ang; Thomas G Ksiazek; Ai Ee Ling Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 6.883