OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the implementation of three commercially available neuraminidase inhibition assays in a public health laboratory (PHL) setting. We also described the drug susceptibility patterns of human influenza A and B circulating in Maryland during the 2011-2012 influenza season. METHODS: From January to May 2012, 169 influenza virus isolates were tested for phenotypic susceptibility to oseltamivir, zanamivir, and peramivir using NA-Fluor(TM), NA-Star®, and NA-XTD(TM) concurrently. A 50% neuraminidase inhibitory concentration (IC50) value was calculated to determine drug susceptibility. We used the standard deviation based on the median absolute deviation of the median analysis to determine the potential for reduced drug susceptibility. We evaluated each assay for the use of resources in high- and low-volume testing scenarios. RESULTS: One of the 25 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic isolates tested was resistant to oseltamivir and peramivir, and sensitive to zanamivir, on all three platforms. Eighty-two influenza A (H3N2) and 62 B isolates were sensitive to all three drugs in all three assays. For a low-volume scenario, NA-Star and NA-XTD took 120 minutes to complete, while NA-Fluor required 300 minutes to complete. The lowest relative cost favored NA-Star. In a high-volume scenario, NA-Fluor had the highest throughput. Reagent use was most efficient when maximizing throughput. Cost efficiency from low- to high-volume testing improved the most for NA-Star. CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation showed that both chemiluminescent and fluorescent neuraminidase inhibition assays can be successfully implemented in a PHL setting to screen circulating influenza strains for neuraminidase inhibitor resistance. For improved PHL influenza surveillance, it may be essential to develop guidelines for phenotypic drug-resistance testing that take into consideration a PHL's workload and available resources.
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the implementation of three commercially available neuraminidase inhibition assays in a public health laboratory (PHL) setting. We also described the drug susceptibility patterns of humaninfluenza A and B circulating in Maryland during the 2011-2012 influenza season. METHODS: From January to May 2012, 169 influenza virus isolates were tested for phenotypic susceptibility to oseltamivir, zanamivir, and peramivir using NA-Fluor(TM), NA-Star®, and NA-XTD(TM) concurrently. A 50% neuraminidase inhibitory concentration (IC50) value was calculated to determine drug susceptibility. We used the standard deviation based on the median absolute deviation of the median analysis to determine the potential for reduced drug susceptibility. We evaluated each assay for the use of resources in high- and low-volume testing scenarios. RESULTS: One of the 25 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic isolates tested was resistant to oseltamivir and peramivir, and sensitive to zanamivir, on all three platforms. Eighty-two influenza A (H3N2) and 62 B isolates were sensitive to all three drugs in all three assays. For a low-volume scenario, NA-Star and NA-XTD took 120 minutes to complete, while NA-Fluor required 300 minutes to complete. The lowest relative cost favored NA-Star. In a high-volume scenario, NA-Fluor had the highest throughput. Reagent use was most efficient when maximizing throughput. Cost efficiency from low- to high-volume testing improved the most for NA-Star. CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation showed that both chemiluminescent and fluorescent neuraminidase inhibition assays can be successfully implemented in a PHL setting to screen circulating influenza strains for neuraminidase inhibitor resistance. For improved PHL influenza surveillance, it may be essential to develop guidelines for phenotypic drug-resistance testing that take into consideration a PHL's workload and available resources.
Authors: Quynh Mai Le; Heiman F L Wertheim; Nhu Duong Tran; H Rogier van Doorn; Tran Hien Nguyen; Peter Horby Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-12-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alfred Sorbello; S Christopher Jones; Wendy Carter; Kimberly Struble; Robert Boucher; Melissa Truffa; Debra Birnkrant; Neha Gada; Sara Camilli; Irene Chan; Scott Dallas; Twanda Scales; Robert Kosko; Elizabeth Thompson; Jesse Goodman; Henry Francis; Gerald Dal Pan Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2012-04-05 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: N T Wetherall; T Trivedi; J Zeller; C Hodges-Savola; J L McKimm-Breschkin; M Zambon; F G Hayden Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Tiffany G Sheu; Varough M Deyde; Margaret Okomo-Adhiambo; Rebecca J Garten; Xiyan Xu; Rick A Bright; Eboneé N Butler; Teresa R Wallis; Alexander I Klimov; Larisa V Gubareva Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2008-07-14 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Margaret Okomo-Adhiambo; Katrina Sleeman; Kristina Ballenger; Ha T Nguyen; Vasiliy P Mishin; Tiffany G Sheu; James Smagala; Yan Li; Alexander I Klimov; Larisa V Gubareva Journal: Viruses Date: 2010-10-13 Impact factor: 5.818
Authors: Ye Jin Jang; Raghavendra Achary; Hye Won Lee; Hyo Jin Lee; Chong-Kyo Lee; Soo Bong Han; Young-Sik Jung; Nam Sook Kang; Pilho Kim; Meehyein Kim Journal: Antiviral Res Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 5.970
Authors: Kelly A S da Costa; Joanne Marie M Del Rosario; Matteo Ferrari; Sneha Vishwanath; Benedikt Asbach; Rebecca Kinsley; Ralf Wagner; Jonathan L Heeney; George W Carnell; Nigel J Temperton Journal: Vaccines (Basel) Date: 2022-09-14