BACKGROUND: The serological diagnosis of acute dengue virus infection relies on the detection of dengue-specific immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies. Immunochromatographic tests are rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) that can be performed at the bedside, but they have not been fully validated for diagnosis of dengue infection. METHODS: More than 20 RDTs for diagnosis of acute dengue infection are commercially available. Of these, 8 were selected for evaluation of performance by use of characterized dengue and nondengue serum specimens, and results were compared with those of a previously published dengue IgM/IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in conjunction with dengue virus serotyping by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: Assay sensitivities were low, ranging from 6.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.0%-9.7%) to 65.3% (95% CI, 59.9%-70.5%), and specificities ranged from 69.1% (95% CI, 61.4%-76.0%) to 100% (95% CI, 97.8%-100%). Of the 8 tests, only 2 had sensitivities of >50%, the level considered to be clinically useful, and, of these, 1 had relatively low specificity (69.1%). Samples collected early in the infection were less likely to test positive than those collected later. A thermal stability study demonstrated a loss in performance of some RDTs when they were stored at a high ambient temperature for 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Users of RDTs for dengue should be aware that many of these tests have a diagnostic accuracy that falls well below the manufacturers' claims. If an acute specimen yields a negative result, a convalescent serum sample should be tested to confirm the result. No RDT adequately differentiated primary and secondary dengue infections, and the tests should not be used for this purpose.
BACKGROUND: The serological diagnosis of acute dengue virus infection relies on the detection of dengue-specific immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies. Immunochromatographic tests are rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) that can be performed at the bedside, but they have not been fully validated for diagnosis of dengue infection. METHODS: More than 20 RDTs for diagnosis of acute dengue infection are commercially available. Of these, 8 were selected for evaluation of performance by use of characterized dengue and nondengue serum specimens, and results were compared with those of a previously published dengue IgM/IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in conjunction with dengue virus serotyping by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: Assay sensitivities were low, ranging from 6.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.0%-9.7%) to 65.3% (95% CI, 59.9%-70.5%), and specificities ranged from 69.1% (95% CI, 61.4%-76.0%) to 100% (95% CI, 97.8%-100%). Of the 8 tests, only 2 had sensitivities of >50%, the level considered to be clinically useful, and, of these, 1 had relatively low specificity (69.1%). Samples collected early in the infection were less likely to test positive than those collected later. A thermal stability study demonstrated a loss in performance of some RDTs when they were stored at a high ambient temperature for 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Users of RDTs for dengue should be aware that many of these tests have a diagnostic accuracy that falls well below the manufacturers' claims. If an acute specimen yields a negative result, a convalescent serum sample should be tested to confirm the result. No RDT adequately differentiated primary and secondary dengue infections, and the tests should not be used for this purpose.
Authors: Hoang L Phuong; Tran T T Nga; Phan T Giao; Le Q Hung; Tran Q Binh; Nguyen V Nam; Nico Nagelkerke; Peter J de Vries Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Maria G Guzman; Scott B Halstead; Harvey Artsob; Philippe Buchy; Jeremy Farrar; Duane J Gubler; Elizabeth Hunsperger; Axel Kroeger; Harold S Margolis; Eric Martínez; Michael B Nathan; Jose Luis Pelegrino; Cameron Simmons; Sutee Yoksan; Rosanna W Peeling Journal: Nat Rev Microbiol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 60.633
Authors: Tran Thi Thanh Nga; Khoa T D Thai; Hoang Lan Phuong; Phan Trong Giao; Le Quoc Hung; Tran Quang Binh; Vo Thi Chi Mai; Nguyen Van Nam; Peter J de Vries Journal: Clin Vaccine Immunol Date: 2007-04-25
Authors: Flavia B Dos Santos; Rita Maria R Nogueira; Monique R Q Lima; Thatiane S De Simone; Hermann G Schatzmayr; Elezer M B Lemes; Eva Harris; Marize P Miagostovich Journal: Clin Vaccine Immunol Date: 2007-03-28
Authors: Subhamoy Pal; Allison L Dauner; Andrea Valks; Brett M Forshey; Kanya C Long; Butsaya Thaisomboonsuk; Gloria Sierra; Victor Picos; Sara Talmage; Amy C Morrison; Eric S Halsey; Guillermo Comach; Chadwick Yasuda; Michael Loeffelholz; Richard G Jarman; Stefan Fernandez; Ung Sam An; Tadeusz J Kochel; Louis E Jasper; Shuenn-Jue L Wu Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Konstantinos Mitsakakis; Valérie D'Acremont; Sebastian Hin; Felix von Stetten; Roland Zengerle Journal: Microelectron Eng Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 2.523
Authors: Stuart D Blacksell; David Bell; James Kelley; Mammen P Mammen; Robert V Gibbons; Richard G Jarman; David W Vaughn; Kemajittra Jenjaroen; Ananda Nisalak; Soulignasack Thongpaseuth; Manivanh Vongsouvath; Viengmone Davong; Phonelavanh Phouminh; Rattanaphone Phetsouvanh; Nicholas P J Day; Paul N Newton Journal: Clin Vaccine Immunol Date: 2007-08-22