| Literature DB >> 28129346 |
Onanong Sengvilaipaseuth1, Koukeo Phommasone1, Xavier de Lamballerie2,3, Manivanh Vongsouvath1, Ooyanong Phonemixay1, Stuart D Blacksell1,4,5, Mayfong Mayxay6, Sommay Keomany7, Phoutthalavanh Souvannasing7, Paul N Newton1,4, Audrey Dubot-Pérès1,2,4.
Abstract
The Dengue Duo Rapid Diagnostic Test (SD Dengue RDT) has good specificity and sensitivity for dengue diagnosis in rural tropical areas. In a previous study, using four control sera, we demonstrated that that the diagnostic accuracy of these RDTs remains stable after long-term storage at high temperatures. We extended this study by testing sera from 119 febrile patients collected between July-November 2012 at Salavan Provincial Hospital (southern Laos) with RDTs stored for 6 months at 4°C, 35° and in a hut (miniature traditional house) at Lao ambient temperatures. The dengue NS1 antigen results from RDTs stored at 35°C and in the hut demonstrated 100% agreement with those stored at 4°C. However, lower positive percent agreements, with broad 95%CI, were observed for the tests: IgM, 60% (14.7-94.7) and 40% (5.3-85.3) for RDTs store at 35°C and in the hut, compared to those stored at 4°C, respectively. This study strenghtens the evidence of the robustness of the NS1 antigen detection RDT for the diagnosis of dengue after storage at tropical temperatures.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28129346 PMCID: PMC5271306 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170359
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Results of RDT stored at 35°C and in the hut in comparison to RDT stored at 4°C.
| Total | Percentage agreements (95%CI) | |||||
| Pos | Eq | Neg | ||||
| Pos | 36 | 0 | 0 | 36 | PPA: 100% (90.3–100) | |
| Eq | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NPA: 100% (95.7–100) | |
| Neg | 0 | 0 | 83 | 83 | OPA: 100% (96.9–100) | |
| Total | 36 | 0 | 83 | 119 | ||
| Pos | 36 | 0 | 0 | 36 | PPA: 100% (90.3–100) | |
| Eq | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NPA: 100% (95.7–100) | |
| Neg | 0 | 0 | 83 | 0 | OPA: 100% (96.9–100) | |
| Total | 36 | 0 | 83 | 83 | ||
| Total | Percentage agreements (95%CI) | |||||
| Pos | Eq | Neg | ||||
| Pos | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | PPA: 60.0% (14.7–94.7) | |
| Eq | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NPA: 100% (96.8–100) | |
| Neg | 2 | 0 | 114 | 116 | OPA: 98.3% (94.1–99.8) | |
| Total | 5 | 0 | 114 | 119 | ||
| Pos | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | PPA: 40.0% (5.3–85.3) | |
| Eq | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | NPA: 100% (96.8–100) | |
| Neg | 2 | 0 | 114 | 116 | OPA: 97.5% (92.8–99.5) | |
| Total | 5 | 0 | 114 | 119 | ||
| Total | Percentage agreements (95%CI) | |||||
| Pos | Eq | Neg | ||||
| Pos | 9 | 0 | 3 | 12 | PPA: 90.0% (55.5–99.7) | |
| Eq | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NPA: 97.2% (92.0–99.4) | |
| Neg | 1 | 2 | 104 | 107 | OPA: 95.0% (89.3–98.1) | |
| Total | 10 | 2 | 107 | 119 | ||
| Pos | 8 | 0 | 3 | 11 | PPA: 80.0% (44.4–97.5) | |
| Eq | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | NPA: 97.2% (92.0–99.4) | |
| Neg | 1 | 2 | 104 | 107 | OPA: 94.1% (88.3–97.6) | |
| Total | 10 | 2 | 107 | 119 | ||
Pos = Positive by both readers, Neg = Negative by both readers, Eq = Equivocal: discrepancy results between both readers. PPA: positive percent agreement ((positive by both RDT/positive by 4C_RDT)*100), NPA: negative percent agreement ((negative by both RDT/negative by 4C_RDT)*100), OPA: overall percent agreement (((positive by both RDT+negative by both RDT)/total)*100).