Literature DB >> 20542205

Performance of diagnostic tests to detect respiratory viruses in older adults.

Rosemary C She1, Christopher R Polage, Lauren B Caram, Edward W Taggart, Weston C Hymas, Christopher W Woods, Kenneth Schmader, Cathy A Petti.   

Abstract

The performance of 4 laboratory methods for diagnosis of viral respiratory tract infections (RTI) in older adults was evaluated. Seventy-four nasopharyngeal (NP) swab specimens were obtained from 60 patients with RTI at a long-term care facility over 2 respiratory seasons. Sixteen specimens were positive for a respiratory virus by at least 1 method. Multiplex reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) by the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel (RVP) detected 16 (100%) of the positive specimens, RVP of 24-h culture supernatant detected 8 (50%), direct fluorescent antibody testing detected 4 (25%), rapid culture detected 2 (12.5%), and rapid antigen testing detected none. For a comparison group, RVP was performed on NP swabs from 20 outpatient children with RTI. The mean fluorescence intensity by RVP was significantly lower for positive adult patients than pediatric patients (P = 0.0373). Our data suggest that older adult patients shed lower titers of viruses, necessitating a highly sensitive assay such as RT-PCR to reliably detect respiratory viral pathogens.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20542205      PMCID: PMC7132674          DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2010.02.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis        ISSN: 0732-8893            Impact factor:   2.803


Introduction

Respiratory tract infections (RTI) cause considerable morbidity and mortality among the elderly population because of the general decline in the respiratory and immune systems with age (Falsey and Walsh, 2006). There is increasing recognition that many of these RTIs are viral in origin, with viruses contributing up to 80% of acute RTI (Falsey et al., 1995, Flamaing et al., 2003). Infectious outbreaks commonly occur among older adult communities (Graat et al., 2003, Hicks et al., 2006, Loeb et al., 2000, Strausbaugh and Joseph, 2000). Clinical clues are often unreliable because indicators of infection and traditional laboratory methods are cumbersome, slow, and variably insensitive, making most diagnoses retrospective (Falsey et al., 1996, Falsey and Walsh, 2006, Walsh et al., 2007). Emerging molecular diagnostic techniques now offer the potential to test for both a greater breadth of viruses and detect them with increased sensitivity and rapidity (Kuypers et al., 2006, Oosterheert et al., 2005, Templeton et al., 2005). Previous studies were often limited by design, knowledge of etiologic agents, or available diagnostic tests (Angeles Marcos et al., 2006, Flamaing et al., 2003, Jennings et al., 2008, Templeton et al., 2005). Multiplex reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for rapid diagnosis of viral RTI is a powerful diagnostic tool, providing clinical and financial benefits upon the health care system (Barenfanger et al., 2000, Gruteke et al., 2004, Marshall et al., 2007, Woo et al., 1997). With excellent sensitivity and specificity, multiplex RT-PCR can help make the diagnosis of viral respiratory infections in a timely and clinically relevant manner, allowing for more effective clinical care, more appropriate use of antimicrobial therapy, and patient isolation to prevent viral transmission (Mahony et al., 2007). Although testing characteristics of both traditional and newer diagnostic methods have been defined in diverse adult and children populations (Arden et al., 2006, Falsey et al., 2006, Jennings et al., 2008), little data exist on the optimal diagnostic test for older adults with viral RTI aside from influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) testing. For this population, there has not been a comprehensive comparison of current modalities for detection of respiratory viruses (i.e., direct fluorescent antibody testing [DFA], culture, multiplex nucleic acid amplification, and rapid antigen assays), and test performance is likely to differ because adults are known to shed fewer virus particles than children during RTI (Hall et al., 1976). We seek to define the performance characteristics of 4 viral diagnostic tests in an older adult population and hypothesize that highly sensitive assays such as RT-PCR will be favored when considering speed and accuracy of diagnosis.

Materials and methods

Specimens

Older adult patients (age, ≥49 years) with RTI were prospectively enrolled from February 2007 to August 2008 at a 56-room, 120-bed long-term care facility (Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC). RTI was defined as the presence of at least 3 respiratory symptoms (new onset or increase in chronic cough, new onset or increase in sputum, dyspnea, chills, headache, myalgias, malaise, sore throat, or nasal congestion) or 2 respiratory symptoms and temperature ≥38.0 °C. Children with RTI presenting at an employee health clinic (ARUP Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT) from December 2007 to March 2008 were also enrolled as a comparison group for multiplex RT-PCR by respiratory viral panel (RVP) testing. Nasopharyngeal (NP) specimens were obtained using flocked swabs (Diagnostic Hybrids [DHI], Athens, OH) and kept refrigerated in 3.0-mL universal transport media until analysis within 24 h of collection.

DFA, culture, and rapid antigen

DFA testing and culture were performed on all specimens for the detection of influenza A and B, RSV, parainfluenza 1 to 3, adenovirus (D3 Ultra DFA Respiratory Kit, DHI), and human metapneumovirus (DHI). DFA and culture were performed using a standard laboratory protocol that includes inoculation of 0.2-mL patient specimen into 1 mL of R-mix refeed media (Dunn et al., 2004). R-mix cell lines (DHI) were cultured and stained at 20 to 24 h after inoculation. On a subset of specimens, rapid antigen testing for RSV and influenza A/B was performed by lateral flow (Binax NOW; Inverness Medical, Waltham, MA) according to the manufacturer's recommended protocol.

Respiratory Viral Panel by RT-PCR

ID-Tag™ RVP (Luminex, Austin, TX), a multiplex RT-PCR platform for detection of influenza A (H1/H3), influenza B, RSV A and B, parainfluenza 1 to 4, coronaviruses 229E, OC43, NL63, and HKU1, human metapneumovirus, enterovirus/rhinovirus, and adenovirus, was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions. Total nucleic acid was extracted from 0.14-mL transport media or 24-h culture supernatant (QIAamp Virus BioRobot 9604 kit; QIAGEN, Valencia, CA). Each 25-μL multiplex, 1-step RT-PCR reaction consisted of 5.75-μL molecular grade water, 2-μL QIAGEN OneStep RT-PCR enzyme mix, 6.25-μL 5× QIAGEN OneStep RT-PCR buffer, 1-μL QIAGEN 10 mmol/L deoxyribonucleotide triphosphate (dNTP) mix, 5-μL RVP RT-PCR primer mix (Luminex), and 5-μL template nucleic acid. Reverse transcription was performed at 50 °C for 30 min and inactivation at 95 °C for 15 min. PCR, target-specific primer extension, bead hybridization, and signal detection were performed as previously described (Mahony et al., 2007). Data were analyzed on the Luminex® xMAP® system using the Tag-It Data Analysis Software RVP-I. The mean fluorescence intensities (MFI) for positive samples were recorded. Statistical comparison between adult and pediatric patients was made using the 2-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann–Whitney) test. Proportions were compared using the 2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction.

Results

Seventy-four NP swab specimens were obtained from 60 patients 49 to 95 years of age. There was a positive result from any of the test methods in 16 specimens (22%) from 15 patients. The distribution of positive results by patient is shown in Table 1 . All specimens were tested by RVP (direct specimen), DFA, and culture. All but 2 specimens were tested by RVP on 24-h culture supernatant. Thirty-one specimens also underwent rapid antigen testing for RSV and influenza A and B. The distribution of positive results by type of respiratory virus is summarized in Table 2 . For the pediatric comparison group (patient ages 8 month to 17 years), 10 (50%) of 20 samples were positive by direct specimen RVP.
Table 1

Results of all specimens with at least 1 positive test result

Patient no.RVP—direct specimenRVP—24-h cultureDFACultureRapid antigen
14RSV BNegativeNegativeNegativeNegative
21Para 3NegativeNegativeNegativeND
25Influenza BNegativeInadequateNegativeND
36Corona, NL63Corona, NL63NegativeNegativeND
37Influenza BInfluenza BInfluenza BInfluenza BND
44Para 1NegativeInadequateNegativeND
46Para 3NegativePara 3Para 3ND
51-1EV/RhinoNegativeNegativeNegativeND
51-2RSV BRSV BRSVNegativeNegative
62Para 1NegativeNegativeNegativeND
83RSV BRSV BInadequateNegativeNegative
86RSV BNegativeInadequateNegativeNegative
87RSV BRSV BNegativeNegativeNegative
90RSV BRSV BRSVNegativeNegative
108Corona, 229ECorona, 229ENegativeNegativeNA
113EV/RhinoEV/RhinoInadequateNegativeNA

Corona = coronavirus; Para = parainfluenza; EV/Rhino = enterovirus/rhinovirus; ND = not done; NA = not applicable.

Table 2

Summary of positive results (no. of specimens with a positive result/total no. of specimens positive by at least 1 method)

RVP—direct specimenRVP—24-h cultureDFACultureRapid antigen
RSV6/64/62/60/60/6
Influenza B2/21/21/21/2ND
Parainfluenza 12/20/20/20/2NA
Parainfluenza 32/20/21/21/2NA
Coronavirus2/22/2NANANA
Enterovirus/rhinovirus2/21/2NANANA
Total16/16 (100%)8/16 (50%)4/12 (33%)2/12 (17%)0/6

ND = not done; NA = not applicable.

Results of all specimens with at least 1 positive test result Corona = coronavirus; Para = parainfluenza; EV/Rhino = enterovirus/rhinovirus; ND = not done; NA = not applicable. Summary of positive results (no. of specimens with a positive result/total no. of specimens positive by at least 1 method) ND = not done; NA = not applicable.

DFA and culture

Of 74 NP swabs, 26 (35%) had inadequate cellularity for DFA interpretation, and of the 16 specimens found positive by any method, 5 (31%) had inadequate cellularity. There was no significant difference between these 2 proportions (P = 0.99). Four specimens were positive by direct specimen DFA: 2 RSVs, 1 influenza B, and 1 parainfluenza 3. Culture was positive in 2 cases (1 influenza B and 1 parainfluenza 3), which were also detected by RVP (direct specimen and post–24-h culture) and DFA. RVP from direct specimen yielded 16 positive results. RVP after a 24-h culture detected 8 of these 16 positive results (50%). The 2 specimens that were not tested by RVP on 24-h culture supernatant were negative by direct specimen RVP, DFA, and culture. The 10 pediatric specimens positive by RVP included 3 RSVs, 2 influenza A, 1 influenza B, 1 human metapneumovirus, 1 enterovirus/rhinovirus, 1 coronavirus, and 1 dual enterovirus/rhinovirus and influenza A. The MFI of positive samples from adult patients with RTI was significantly lower than from pediatric patients with RTI (median, 1560 versus 3553 U, P = 0.0373).

Rapid antigen testing

Of 31 specimens, none were positive for RSV, influenza A, or influenza B by rapid antigen testing, including the 6 specimens that were RSV positive by at least 1 test method. The 2 specimens positive for influenza B by RVP were not tested by rapid antigen. No specimens during the study were positive for influenza A by rapid antigen or any other test method.

Discussion

Although many studies have examined the utility of the various methods used for diagnosis of respiratory virus infections, to our knowledge, none have systematically and concurrently examined the performance characteristics of DFA, culture, rapid antigen testing, and PCR on an older adult population (Barenfanger et al., 2000, Falsey et al., 1996, Falsey et al., 1995, Lam et al., 2007, Templeton et al., 2004). We found that approximately one-fifth of older adult patients with an acute RTI had a detectable viral etiology. This is somewhat lower than the frequency seen in other studies, which have found a viral etiology in approximately one-third of elderly patients with RTI using various combinations of culture, serology, and antigen detection (Falsey et al., 1995, Flamaing et al., 2003). This study did not have a surveillance group of asymptomatic older adults to establish a causal relationship, but respiratory viruses are found generally in a low percentage (<5%) of adult surveillance specimens when PCR is used (Jartti et al., 2008). The data in this study indicate that multiplexed RT-PCR is highly sensitive in detecting respiratory viruses in older adults compared to DFA, culture, and rapid antigen testing. The MFI data from the RVP assay suggest that older adults shed less virus than children during RTI. Virus detection in the older adult population is therefore enhanced by highly sensitive methods such as RT-PCR. An additional advantage of the RVP assay is that viruses that are not routinely cultured or stained can be detected, such as rhinovirus and coronavirus. This is especially useful in elderly patients, for whom rhinovirus and coronavirus can cause severe to fatal respiratory disease (Greenberg, 2007, Hicks et al., 2006). Although it may seem intuitive that RVP testing after 24 h of culture would be equally if not more sensitive than RVP on the direct specimen, we found the opposite to be true. This may be due to the dilution of the specimen with culture media, particularly when there were low numbers of infective virus particles in the original sample. Furthermore, R-mix cells are optimized for rapid viral antigen detection at 24 or 48 h but not for propagation of virus (Wilkey et al., 2006). Our observation that RVP from the supernatant of a 24-h R-mix culture is associated with reduced sensitivity is an important finding, especially for developing diagnostic algorithms for the detection of respiratory viruses. DFA on respiratory specimens remains a useful test in young children because they shed large amounts of virus, and DFA is quicker and simpler to perform compared to RT-PCR. In the older adult population studied here, DFA failed to detect a viral pathogen in 8 of 12 possible cases, whereas RVP did not miss any cases that were found by DFA. Culture was even less sensitive than DFA, contributing no additional information to the patients tested. Other studies have also found viral culture to be insensitive, especially in older adults (Falsey et al., 1996). Although convenient, rapid antigen testing for RSV is not recommended for testing in older adults because of its insensitivity in this patient population. This finding is corroborated by other investigators (Casiano-Colon et al., 2003, Falsey et al., 1996). No influenza A or B cases were available for testing by rapid antigen; thus, conclusions on rapid antigen testing for influenza in older adults cannot be made. Dual infections were not found in older adults in this study, whereas in young children, they are found in 12% or more of patients tested in other investigations (Gruteke et al., 2004, Kuypers et al., 2006). The incidence of mixed viral RTI in older adults has not been studied using highly sensitive modalities such as RT-PCR but has been reported in very low frequency with use of other test methods such as serology and culture (Falsey et al., 1995, Flamaing et al., 2003). Our study did not include serologic testing, another sensitive testing modality, but serology is largely retrospective in contrast to the test methods used in this study. We acknowledge that the results of this study may have been affected by the high number of inadequate specimens. However, specimens were collected by experienced nursing and medical staff. Moreover, this underscores the importance of having highly sensitive diagnostic assays for older adults and highlights the need for modified protocols for specimen collection, especially in the elderly population during dry winter conditions. The proportion of inadequate specimens overall and among specimens with positive results did not differ statistically. This finding suggests that PCR is sufficiently sensitive to detect virus even in specimens with poor cellularity. The low number of positive results from DFA or culture may has been due to specimen inadequacy. It should be noted that for PCR, culture, and rapid antigen testing, specimen cellularity is not routinely assessed and would be noted only if microscopy, e.g., DFA, was performed. This study demonstrates that for older adults, a highly sensitive platform is necessary to minimize false-negative test results. Rapid antigen testing for RSV is not recommended for older adults. Negative DFA and culture results should be interpreted with caution because these methods are insensitive particularly in the older adult population. Nucleic acid amplification-based testing, with its superior sensitivity, serves as the most robust method to detect respiratory viruses in older adults, and further study is warranted to determine its clinical, epidemiologic, and financial benefits over traditional methods.
  28 in total

1.  Surveillance for outbreaks of respiratory tract infections in nursing homes.

Authors:  M Loeb; A McGeer; M McArthur; R W Peeling; M Petric; A E Simor
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-04-18       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  The role of viruses in the aetiology of community-acquired pneumonia in adults.

Authors:  Maria Angeles Marcos; Marta Camps; Tomás Pumarola; José Antonio Martinez; Esteban Martinez; Josep Mensa; Elisa Garcia; Georgina Peñarroja; Póvilas Dambrava; Inmaculada Casas; Maria Teresa Jiménez de Anta; Antoni Torres
Journal:  Antivir Ther       Date:  2006

3.  Comparison of real-time PCR assays with fluorescent-antibody assays for diagnosis of respiratory virus infections in children.

Authors:  Jane Kuypers; Nancy Wright; James Ferrenberg; Meei-Li Huang; Anne Cent; Lawrence Corey; Rhoda Morrow
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Clinical and financial benefits of rapid detection of respiratory viruses: an outcomes study.

Authors:  J Barenfanger; C Drake; N Leon; T Mueller; T Troutt
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Development of a respiratory virus panel test for detection of twenty human respiratory viruses by use of multiplex PCR and a fluid microbead-based assay.

Authors:  J Mahony; S Chong; F Merante; S Yaghoubian; T Sinha; C Lisle; R Janeczko
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  Sensitivity of respiratory virus culture when screening with R-mix fresh cells.

Authors:  James J Dunn; R Dean Woolstenhulme; Janine Langer; Karen C Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Impact of rapid detection of viral and atypical bacterial pathogens by real-time polymerase chain reaction for patients with lower respiratory tract infection.

Authors:  Jan Jelrik Oosterheert; Anton M van Loon; Rob Schuurman; Andy I M Hoepelman; Eelko Hak; Steven Thijsen; George Nossent; Margriet M E Schneider; Willem M N Hustinx; Marc J M Bonten
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2005-10-13       Impact factor: 9.079

Review 8.  Viral pneumonia in older adults.

Authors:  Ann R Falsey; Edward E Walsh
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2006-01-06       Impact factor: 9.079

9.  Acute respiratory tract infection in daycare centers for older persons.

Authors:  A R Falsey; R M McCann; W J Hall; M A Tanner; M M Criddle; M A Formica; C S Irvine; J E Kolassa; W H Barker; J J Treanor
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 5.562

10.  Viral lower respiratory tract infection in the elderly: a prospective in-hospital study.

Authors:  J Flamaing; I Engelmann; E Joosten; M Van Ranst; J Verhaegen; W E Peetermans
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2003-11-06       Impact factor: 3.267

View more
  15 in total

Review 1.  Severe Respiratory Viral Infections: New Evidence and Changing Paradigms.

Authors:  James M Walter; Richard G Wunderink
Journal:  Infect Dis Clin North Am       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 5.982

2.  Respiratory syncytial virus and other respiratory viral infections in older adults with moderate to severe influenza-like illness.

Authors:  Ann R Falsey; Janet E McElhaney; Jiri Beran; Gerrit A van Essen; Xavier Duval; Meral Esen; Florence Galtier; Pierre Gervais; Shinn-Jang Hwang; Peter Kremsner; Odile Launay; Geert Leroux-Roels; Shelly A McNeil; Andrzej Nowakowski; Jan Hendrik Richardus; Guillermo Ruiz-Palacios; Suzanne St Rose; Jeanne-Marie Devaster; Lidia Oostvogels; Serge Durviaux; Sylvia Taylor
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2014-01-29       Impact factor: 5.226

3.  Viral respiratory infections in a nursing home: a six-month prospective study.

Authors:  Tina Uršič; Nina Gorišek Miksić; Lara Lusa; Franc Strle; Miroslav Petrovec
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2016-11-04       Impact factor: 3.090

4.  Viral etiology of severe acute respiratory infections in hospitalized children in Cameroon, 2011-2013.

Authors:  Sebastien Kenmoe; Patrice Tchendjou; Marie-Astrid Vernet; Suzie Moyo-Tetang; Tatiana Mossus; Mohamadou Njankouo-Ripa; Angeladine Kenne; Véronique Penlap Beng; Astrid Vabret; Richard Njouom
Journal:  Influenza Other Respir Viruses       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 4.380

5.  Detection of viral respiratory pathogens in mild and severe acute respiratory infections in Singapore.

Authors:  Lili Jiang; Vernon Jian Ming Lee; Lin Cui; Raymond Lin; Chyi Lin Tan; Linda Wei Lin Tan; Wei-Yen Lim; Yee-Sin Leo; Louie Low; Martin Hibberd; Mark I-Cheng Chen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 6.  Viral pneumonia.

Authors:  Olli Ruuskanen; Elina Lahti; Lance C Jennings; David R Murdoch
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2011-03-22       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Characteristics of respiratory viral infections during influenza season in Canadian Hutterite Communities.

Authors:  Tae H Kim; Margaret L Russell; Kevin Fonseca; Fred Aoki; Gregory Horsman; Paul Van Caeseele; Khami Chokani; Mark Voight; Lorne Babiuk; Lorraine Moss; Richard Webby; David J D Earn; Pardeep Singh; Cassandra Howse; Mark Loeb
Journal:  Influenza Other Respir Viruses       Date:  2012-10-19       Impact factor: 4.380

Review 8.  Testing for Respiratory Viruses in Adults With Severe Lower Respiratory Infection.

Authors:  James M Walter; Richard G Wunderink
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 9.410

Review 9.  Review of Non-Bacterial Infections in Respiratory Medicine: Viral Pneumonia.

Authors:  José María Galván; Olga Rajas; Javier Aspa
Journal:  Arch Bronconeumol       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 4.872

10.  Viral Respiratory Tract Infections in Adult Patients Attending Outpatient and Emergency Departments, Taiwan, 2012-2013: A PCR/Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry Study.

Authors:  Hsin-I Shih; Hsuan-Chen Wang; Ih-Jen Su; Hsiang-Chin Hsu; Jen-Ren Wang; Hsiao Fang Sunny Sun; Chien-Hsuan Chou; Wen-Chien Ko; Ming-I Hsieh; Chi-Jung Wu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.