BACKGROUND: Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIs) are point-of-care diagnostic assays that are designed for single use outside a formal laboratory, with in-home pregnancy tests the best-known example of these tests. Although the LFI has some limitations over more-complex immunoassay procedures, such as reduced sensitivity and the potential for false-positive results when using complex sample matrices, the assay has the benefits of a rapid time to result and ease of use. These benefits make it an attractive option for obtaining rapid results in an austere environment. In an outbreak of any magnitude, a field-based rapid diagnostic assay would allow proper patient transport and for safe burials to be conducted without the delay caused by transport of samples between remote villages and testing facilities. Use of such point-of-care instruments in the ongoing Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in West Africa would have distinct advantages in control and prevention of local outbreaks, but proper understanding of the technology and interpretation of results are important. METHODS: In this study, a LFI, originally developed by the Naval Medical Research Center for Ebola virus environmental testing, was evaluated for its ability to detect the virus in clinical samples in Liberia. Clinical blood and plasma samples and post mortem oral swabs submitted to the Liberian Institute for Biomedical Research, the National Public Health Reference Laboratory for EVD testing, were tested and compared to results of real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), using assays targeting Ebola virus glycoprotein and nucleoprotein. RESULTS: The LFI findings correlated well with those of the real-time RT-PCR assays used as benchmarks. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid antigen-detection tests such as LFIs are attractive alternatives to traditional immunoassays but have reduced sensitivity and specificity, resulting in increases in false-positive and false-negative results. An understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of a particular assay lets the diagnostician choose the correct situation to use the correct assay and properly interpret the results. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
BACKGROUND: Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIs) are point-of-care diagnostic assays that are designed for single use outside a formal laboratory, with in-home pregnancy tests the best-known example of these tests. Although the LFI has some limitations over more-complex immunoassay procedures, such as reduced sensitivity and the potential for false-positive results when using complex sample matrices, the assay has the benefits of a rapid time to result and ease of use. These benefits make it an attractive option for obtaining rapid results in an austere environment. In an outbreak of any magnitude, a field-based rapid diagnostic assay would allow proper patient transport and for safe burials to be conducted without the delay caused by transport of samples between remote villages and testing facilities. Use of such point-of-care instruments in the ongoing Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in West Africa would have distinct advantages in control and prevention of local outbreaks, but proper understanding of the technology and interpretation of results are important. METHODS: In this study, a LFI, originally developed by the Naval Medical Research Center for Ebola virus environmental testing, was evaluated for its ability to detect the virus in clinical samples in Liberia. Clinical blood and plasma samples and post mortem oral swabs submitted to the Liberian Institute for Biomedical Research, the National Public Health Reference Laboratory for EVD testing, were tested and compared to results of real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), using assays targeting Ebola virus glycoprotein and nucleoprotein. RESULTS: The LFI findings correlated well with those of the real-time RT-PCR assays used as benchmarks. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid antigen-detection tests such as LFIs are attractive alternatives to traditional immunoassays but have reduced sensitivity and specificity, resulting in increases in false-positive and false-negative results. An understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of a particular assay lets the diagnostician choose the correct situation to use the correct assay and properly interpret the results. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
Authors: N F Walker; C S Brown; D Youkee; P Baker; N Williams; A Kalawa; K Russell; A F Samba; N Bentley; F Koroma; M B King; B E Parker; M Thompson; T Boyles; B Healey; B Kargbo; D Bash-Taqi; A J Simpson; A Kamara; T B Kamara; M Lado; O Johnson; T Brooks Journal: Euro Surveill Date: 2015-03-26
Authors: Adrienne R Trombley; Leslie Wachter; Jeffrey Garrison; Valerie A Buckley-Beason; Jordan Jahrling; Lisa E Hensley; Randal J Schoepp; David A Norwood; Augustine Goba; Joseph N Fair; David A Kulesh Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Mara Jana Broadhurst; John Daniel Kelly; Ann Miller; Amanda Semper; Daniel Bailey; Elisabetta Groppelli; Andrew Simpson; Tim Brooks; Susan Hula; Wilfred Nyoni; Alhaji B Sankoh; Santigi Kanu; Alhaji Jalloh; Quy Ton; Nicholas Sarchet; Peter George; Mark D Perkins; Betsy Wonderly; Megan Murray; Nira R Pollock Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Pierre Formenty; Eric Maurice Leroy; Alain Epelboin; Francois Libama; Marco Lenzi; Hinrich Sudeck; Philippe Yaba; Yokouidé Allarangar; Paul Boumandouki; Virginot Blad Nkounkou; Christian Drosten; Allen Grolla; Heinz Feldmann; Cathy Roth Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2006-04-26 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Marta Lado; Naomi F Walker; Peter Baker; Shamil Haroon; Colin S Brown; Daniel Youkee; Neil Studd; Quaanan Kessete; Rishma Maini; Tom Boyles; Eva Hanciles; Alie Wurie; Thaim B Kamara; Oliver Johnson; Andrew J M Leather Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Jonathan S Towner; Pierre E Rollin; Daniel G Bausch; Anthony Sanchez; Sharon M Crary; Martin Vincent; William F Lee; Christina F Spiropoulou; Thomas G Ksiazek; Mathew Lukwiya; Felix Kaducu; Robert Downing; Stuart T Nichol Journal: J Virol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Allen Grolla; Steven M Jones; Lisa Fernando; James E Strong; Ute Ströher; Peggy Möller; Janusz T Paweska; Felicity Burt; Pedro Pablo Palma; Armand Sprecher; Pierre Formenty; Cathy Roth; Heinz Feldmann Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2011-05-24
Authors: Basilua Andre Muzembo; Kei Kitahara; Ayumu Ohno; Ngangu Patrick Ntontolo; Nlandu Roger Ngatu; Keinosuke Okamoto; Shin-Ichi Miyoshi Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 13.831
Authors: Alexander N Baker; Asier R Muguruza; Sarah-Jane Richards; Panagiotis G Georgiou; Stephen Goetz; Marc Walker; Simone Dedola; Robert A Field; Matthew I Gibson Journal: Adv Healthc Mater Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 9.933
Authors: Alexander N Baker; Sarah-Jane Richards; Collette S Guy; Thomas R Congdon; Muhammad Hasan; Alexander J Zwetsloot; Angelo Gallo; Józef R Lewandowski; Phillip J Stansfeld; Anne Straube; Marc Walker; Simona Chessa; Giulia Pergolizzi; Simone Dedola; Robert A Field; Matthew I Gibson Journal: ACS Cent Sci Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 14.553
Authors: Alexander N Baker; Sarah-Jane Richards; Sarojini Pandey; Collette S Guy; Ashfaq Ahmad; Muhammad Hasan; Caroline I Biggs; Panagiotis G Georgiou; Alexander J Zwetsloot; Anne Straube; Simone Dedola; Robert A Field; Neil R Anderson; Marc Walker; Dimitris Grammatopoulos; Matthew I Gibson Journal: ACS Sens Date: 2021-10-11 Impact factor: 7.711