Human rotavirus A detection: Comparison of enzymatic immunoassay and rapid chromatographic test with two quantitative RT-PCR assays

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00027162%3A_____%2F18%3AN0000218" target="_blank" >RIV/00027162:_____/18:N0000218 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/61989592:15110/18:73593224 RIV/00159816:_____/18:00069498 RIV/00216224:14110/18:00106973

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328476733_Comparison_of_enzymatic_immunoassay_and_rapid_chromatographic_test_with_two_quantitative_RT-PCR_assays" target="_blank" >https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328476733_Comparison_of_enzymatic_immunoassay_and_rapid_chromatographic_test_with_two_quantitative_RT-PCR_assays</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Human rotavirus A detection: Comparison of enzymatic immunoassay and rapid chromatographic test with two quantitative RT-PCR assays

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Objective. The aim of this study was to compare results of two commercially available kits used for routine detection of Rotavirus A in human stool samples with results of commercial quantitative reverse-transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) test and in-house RT-qPCR. Material and methods. In total, 749 stool samples were screened with the use of four different methods. The samples were collected from four diagnostic laboratories from March 2016 to June 2017. Diagnose of gastrointestinal disorders was stated in one third of tested patients, the rest of samples was collected from patients with other primary diagnose. The samples were tested with the enzymatic immunoassay (EIA) (RIDASCREEN® Rotavirus) and with rapid diagnostic immunochromatographic test (RDT) (IMMUNOQUICK® No-Rot-Adeno). As a reference method a commercial RT-qPCR test was used (Primerdesign™ Genesig® Kit) and it was compared with in-house RT-qPCR test prepared in our laboratory. The samples which in the reference RT-qPCR gave positive signal of reaction in cycle 28 or higher (Ct ≥ 28) were assessed as negatives in order to include only samples with some clinical relevance into sensitivity determination. Results. Diagnostic sensitivity was assessed as 84.2% for EIA and 82.5% for RDT. The specificity of those tests was calculated as 97.8% for EIA and 96.4% for RDT. The performance of both diagnostic tests describing their positive predictive value was determined to be 87.3% for EIA and 80.3% for RDT. Negative predictive value was calculated to be 97.2% for EIA and 96.8% for RDT. Proportion of RVA-positive samples determined with the reference RT-qPCR test with our own cut-off level was 15.2% (n=114). Comparison of the in-house and reference RT-qPCR tests showed very good agreement of results. The sensitivity of the in-house test was 100% and its specificity 99.7%. Conclusions. RT-qPCR is more sensitive for surveillance of rotavirus gastroenteritis than routinely used EIA or RDT methods. The specificity of both evaluated tests was very high. However, EIA was in all performance parameters assessed better than RDT.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Human rotavirus A detection: Comparison of enzymatic immunoassay and rapid chromatographic test with two quantitative RT-PCR assays

Popis výsledku anglicky

Objective. The aim of this study was to compare results of two commercially available kits used for routine detection of Rotavirus A in human stool samples with results of commercial quantitative reverse-transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) test and in-house RT-qPCR. Material and methods. In total, 749 stool samples were screened with the use of four different methods. The samples were collected from four diagnostic laboratories from March 2016 to June 2017. Diagnose of gastrointestinal disorders was stated in one third of tested patients, the rest of samples was collected from patients with other primary diagnose. The samples were tested with the enzymatic immunoassay (EIA) (RIDASCREEN® Rotavirus) and with rapid diagnostic immunochromatographic test (RDT) (IMMUNOQUICK® No-Rot-Adeno). As a reference method a commercial RT-qPCR test was used (Primerdesign™ Genesig® Kit) and it was compared with in-house RT-qPCR test prepared in our laboratory. The samples which in the reference RT-qPCR gave positive signal of reaction in cycle 28 or higher (Ct ≥ 28) were assessed as negatives in order to include only samples with some clinical relevance into sensitivity determination. Results. Diagnostic sensitivity was assessed as 84.2% for EIA and 82.5% for RDT. The specificity of those tests was calculated as 97.8% for EIA and 96.4% for RDT. The performance of both diagnostic tests describing their positive predictive value was determined to be 87.3% for EIA and 80.3% for RDT. Negative predictive value was calculated to be 97.2% for EIA and 96.8% for RDT. Proportion of RVA-positive samples determined with the reference RT-qPCR test with our own cut-off level was 15.2% (n=114). Comparison of the in-house and reference RT-qPCR tests showed very good agreement of results. The sensitivity of the in-house test was 100% and its specificity 99.7%. Conclusions. RT-qPCR is more sensitive for surveillance of rotavirus gastroenteritis than routinely used EIA or RDT methods. The specificity of both evaluated tests was very high. However, EIA was in all performance parameters assessed better than RDT.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

10607 - Virology

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/NV16-29937A" target="_blank" >NV16-29937A: Komplexní analýza humánních rotavirových infekcí v České republice včetně atypických a emergentních kmenů směřující k vývoji nových detekčních metod</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2018

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Epidemiologie, mikrobiologie, imunologie

ISSN

1210-7913

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

68

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

3

Stát vydavatele periodika

CZ - Česká republika

Počet stran výsledku

4

Strana od-do

110-113

Kód UT WoS článku

000455471600003

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—