Literature DB >> 21396540

Comparison of real-time RT-PCR, shell vial culture, and conventional cell culture for the detection of the pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in hospitalized patients.

Paula López Roa1, Pilar Catalán, Maddalena Giannella, Darío García de Viedma, Virginia Sandonis, Emilio Bouza.   

Abstract

The emergence of the pandemic influenza virus A H1N1 has made fast and accurate diagnosis essential. However, few well-validated diagnostic techniques exist. The real-time RT-PCR developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the recommended technique. Our objective was to compare the CDC real-time RT-PCR assay, shell vial (SV), and conventional cell culture [with Madine-Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells and A549] for the detection of pandemic influenza A H1N1 in hospitalized patients. We performed a prospective study comparing the efficacy of 5 diagnostic techniques (RTPCR, SV in A549, SV in MDCK, conventional cell culture in A549, and conventional cell culture in MDCK) using nasopharyngeal swabs from patients ≥18 years of age hospitalized with clinical symptoms of influenza at our institution. Detection of the virus by conventional culture was considered the gold standard. An "extended gold standard" was also used to recalculate validity values. The sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values (NPVs) for the detection of influenza A H1N1, determined using conventional culture as the gold standard, were, respectively, as follows: RT-PCR: 95.6, 82.3, 78.3, 96.5%; SVA549: 91.2, 99.01, 98.4, 94.4%; SV-MDCK: 82.3, 100, 100, 89.4%; tube-A549: 94.12, 100, 100, 96.2%; tube-MDCK: 86.7, 100, 100, 91.9%. Sensitivities and NPVs using an extended gold standard were as follows: RT-PCR: 96.5%, 96.6%; SV-A549: 73.3%, 78.5%; SV-MDCK: 65.1%, 73.7%; tube-A549: 74.4%, 79.2%; tube-MDCK: 68.6%, 75.7%. The average time to detect pandemic influenza A H1N1 by RT-PCR, SV culture, and conventional culture was, respectively, 4 h, 48 h, and 7 days. Real-time RT-PCR displayed high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of influenza A H1N1 in adult patients when compared with conventional techniques. In addition, the A549 cell line was not inferior to the MDCK line.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21396540     DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2010.11.007

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


  12 in total

1.  Direct Detection of Influenza A and B Viruses in Less Than 20 Minutes Using a Commercially Available Rapid PCR Assay.

Authors:  Matthew J Binnicker; Mark J Espy; Cole L Irish; Emily A Vetter
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  An algorithm to diagnose influenza infection: evaluating the clinical importance and impact on hospital costs of screening with rapid antigen detection tests.

Authors:  M González-Del Vecchio; P Catalán; V de Egea; A Rodríguez-Borlado; C Martos; B Padilla; B Rodríguez-Sanchez; E Bouza
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 3.267

3.  Detection of new bunyavirus RNA by reverse transcription-loop-mediated isothermal amplification.

Authors:  Xue-Yong Huang; Xiao-Ning Hu; Hong Ma; Yan-Hua Du; Hong-Xia Ma; Kai Kang; Ai-Guo You; Hai-Feng Wang; Li Zhang; Hao-Min Chen; J Stephen Dumler; Bian-Li Xu
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-12-04       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Effects of imperfect test sensitivity and specificity on observational studies of influenza vaccine effectiveness.

Authors:  Michael L Jackson; Kenneth J Rothman
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2015-02-07       Impact factor: 3.641

5.  Incorporating Real-time Influenza Detection Into the Test-negative Design for Estimating Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness: The Real-time Test-negative Design (rtTND).

Authors:  Leora R Feldstein; Wesley H Self; Jill M Ferdinands; Adrienne G Randolph; Michael Aboodi; Adrienne H Baughman; Samuel M Brown; Matthew C Exline; D Clark Files; Kevin Gibbs; Adit A Ginde; Michelle N Gong; Carlos G Grijalva; Natasha Halasa; Akram Khan; Christopher J Lindsell; Margaret Newhams; Ithan D Peltan; Matthew E Prekker; Todd W Rice; Nathan I Shapiro; Jay Steingrub; H Keipp Talbot; M Elizabeth Halloran; Manish Patel
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 9.079

Review 6.  Tools to detect influenza virus.

Authors:  Dae-Ki Kim; Barun Poudel
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 2.759

7.  The Epistemology of a Positive SARS-CoV-2 Test.

Authors:  Rainer Johannes Klement; Prasanta S Bandyopadhyay
Journal:  Acta Biotheor       Date:  2020-09-04       Impact factor: 1.185

8.  Detection methods for influenza A H1N1 virus with special reference to biosensors: a review.

Authors:  Ravina R; Anita Dalal; Hari Mohan; Minakshi Prasad; C S Pundir
Journal:  Biosci Rep       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 3.840

Review 9.  Progression and Trends in Virus from Influenza A to COVID-19: An Overview of Recent Studies.

Authors:  Hakimeh Baghaei Daemi; Muhammad Fakhar-E-Alam Kulyar; Xinlin He; Chengfei Li; Morteza Karimpour; Xiaomei Sun; Zhong Zou; Meilin Jin
Journal:  Viruses       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 5.048

10.  Microdroplet sandwich real-time rt-PCR for detection of pandemic and seasonal influenza subtypes.

Authors:  Stephanie L Angione; Zintis Inde; Christina M Beck; Andrew W Artenstein; Steven M Opal; Anubhav Tripathi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-16       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.