Clinical performance of three rapid diagnostic tests for influenza virus in nasopharyngeal specimens to detect novel swine-origin influenza viruses

Comparison of detection rate of 16 sampling methods for respiratory viruses: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of clinical data and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Respiratory viruses (RVs) is a common cause of illness in people of all ages, at present, different types of sampling methods are available for respiratory viral diagnosis. However, the diversity of available sampling methods and the limited direct comparisons in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) make decision-making difficult. We did a network meta-analysis, which accounted for both direct and indirect comparisons, to determine the detection rate of different sampling methods for RVs.

METHODS

Relevant articles were retrieved comprehensively by searching the online databases of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane published before 25 March 2020. With the help of R V.3.6.3 software and 'GeMTC V.0.8.2' package, network meta-analysis was performed within a Bayesian framework. Node-splitting method and I ² test combined leverage graphs and Gelman-Rubin-Brooks plots were conducted to evaluate the model's accuracy. The rank probabilities in direct and cumulative rank plots were also incorporated to rank the corresponding sampling methods for overall and specific virus.

RESULTS

16 sampling methods with 54 438 samples from 57 literatures were ultimately involved in this study. The model indicated good consistency and convergence but high heterogeneity, hence, random-effect analysis was applied. The top three sampling methods for RVs were nasopharyngeal wash (NPW), mid-turbinate swab (MTS) and nasopharyngeal swab (NPS). Despite certain differences, the results of virus-specific subanalysis were basically consistent with RVs: MTS, NPW and NPS for influenza; MTS, NPS and NPW for influenza-a and b; saliva, NPW and NPS for rhinovirus and parainfluenza; NPW, MTS and nasopharyngeal aspirate for respiratory syncytial virus; saliva, NPW and MTS for adenovirus and sputum; MTS and NPS for coronavirus.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis provides supporting evidences that NPW, MTS and NPS have higher diagnostic value regarding RVs infection, moreover, particular preferred methods should be considered in terms of specific virus pandemic. Of course, subsequent RCTs with larger samples are required to validate our findings.

Quantitative influenza follow-up testing (QIFT)--a novel biomarker for the monitoring of disease activity at the point-of-care

BACKGROUND

Influenza infections induce considerable disease burden in young children. Biomarkers for the monitoring of disease activity at the point-of-care (POC) are currently lacking. Recent methodologies for fluorescence-based rapid testing have been developed to provide improved sensitivities with the initial diagnosis. The present study aims to explore the utility of second-generation rapid testing during longitudinal follow-up of influenza patients (Rapid Influenza Follow-up Testing = RIFT). Signal/control fluorescent readouts (Quantitative Influenza Follow-up Testing = QIFT) are evaluated as a potential biomarker for the monitoring of disease activity at the POC.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

RIFT (SOFIA) and QIFT were performed at the POC and compared to blinded RT-PCR at the National Reference Centre for Influenza. From 10/2011-4/2013, a total of 2048 paediatric cases were studied prospectively; 273 cases were PCR-confirmed for influenza. During follow-up, RIFT results turned negative either prior to PCR (68%), or simultaneously (30%). The first negative RIFT occurred after a median of 8 days with a median virus load (VL) of 5.6×10∧3 copies/ml and cycle threshold of 37, with no evidence of viral rebound. Binning analysis revealed that QIFT differentiated accurately between patients with low, medium and high viral titres. QIFT increase/decrease showed 88% agreement (sensitivity = 52%, specificity = 95%) with VL increase/decrease, respectively. QIFT-based viral clearance estimates showed similar values compared to PCR-based estimates. Variations in viral clearance rates were lower in treated compared to untreated patients. The study was limited by use of non-invasive, semi-quantitative nasopharyngeal samples. VL measurements below the limit of detection could not be quantified reliably.

CONCLUSIONS

During follow-up, RIFT provides a first surrogate measure for influenza disease activity. A "switch" from positive to negative values may indicate a drop in viral load below a critical threshold, where rebound is no longer expected. QIFT may provide a useful tool for the monitoring of disease burden and viral clearance at the POC.

Validation of a multiplex reverse transcriptase PCR ELISA for the detection of 19 respiratory tract pathogens

INTRODUCTION

Since acute respiratory tract infections inflict a high burden of disease in children worldwide, a multiplex reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction combined with a microwell hybridization assay (m-RT-PCR-ELISA) to detect 19 different respiratory pathogens was developed and validated.

METHODS

A total of 430 respiratory specimens were retrospectively tested in parallel by both the advanced 19-valent m-RT-PCR-ELISA as well as by culture or individual RT-PCR assays used in clinical routine.

RESULTS

The mean (median) sensitivity of the m-RT-PCR-ELISA in the retrospective test was 93.3% (95.1%; range 83.3-100 %), and the mean (median) specificity was 99.8 and 100 % (range 98.6-100 %), respectively. The mean positive predictive value was 99.3 % (range 93.4-100 %) and the mean negative predictive value was 95.3 % (range 98.4-100 %). Feasibility and clinical value of the 19-valent method was prospectively shown on 16,231 incoming clinical specimens from patients between 0 and 16 years of age with acute respiratory tract infections admitted to pediatric hospitals or private practices from October 2003 to June 2010 in three regions in Germany (Kiel, Mainz, Freiburg; Freiburg to June 2007 only). At least one microorganism was detected in 10,765 of 16,231 (66.3 %) clinical specimens: 5,044 RV, 1,999 RSV, 1,286 AV, 944 EV, 737 seasonal IVA, 173 pandemic IVA H1N1-2009, 899 MPV, 518 CV, 383 PIV3, 268 PIV1, 259 Mpn, 205 IVB, 164 PIV2, 144 PIV4, 103 Bp, 29 Cpn and 29 Bpp, while reovirus and Lpn were not present in these specimens from a pediatric population. More than one organism could be detected in 13.4 % of the specimens.

CONCLUSIONS

The m-RT-PCR-ELISA evaluated here improves the spectrum for diagnosing respiratory infections and is a feasible instrument for individual diagnostic and epidemiological studies.

Reliability of a rapid test for the clinical diagnosis of influenza A/H1N1 2009

BACKGROUND

The rapid diagnosis of a pandemic influenza A/H1N1 2009 (H1N1pdm) virus infection is required in ambulatory care settings, since early identification can prevent further transmission. However, the sensitivity of rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) is still questionable, and specific indicators for H1N1pdm and/or false-negative results by RIDTs have not been clearly determined.

METHODS

From June to December 2009, nasal swabs from 324 patients at Kochi Health Science Center were used for the diagnosis of infection by RIDT and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of the RIDT was determined to be 80.0% and the specificity 97.1%. Multivariate analysis revealed that the frequencies of contagiousness and headache were significant in patients with H1N1pdm infection, in addition to common symptoms of respiratory infection. These data indicated that the H1N1pdm virus had high infectivity and was harmful to the endocranial environment. In the false-negative group, the time interval between onset and consultation was 5.5 ± 6.5 h (median ± interquartile range), which was significantly shorter than the 11.5 ± 7.0 h in the true-positive group. The sensitivity of the RIDT was significantly low during the time-period within 3 h from onset (56.0%); however after 4 h the sensitivity was determined to be >80%. These data indicated that the concentration of the virus in nasal swabs was elevated over the course of the disease.

CONCLUSIONS

We have demonstrated that the RIDT is reliable for the diagnosis of H1N1pdm infection. Taking into consideration the time interval between onset and consultation and other features of H1N1pdm, such as contagiousness and headache, it may be necessary to re-test RIDT-negative cases later.

Recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of influenza pneumonia

A potentially fatal complication of influenza infection is the development of pneumonia, caused either directly by the influenza virus, or by secondary bacterial infection. Pneumonia related to the 2009 influenza A pandemic was found to be underestimated by commonly used pneumonia severity scores in many cases, and to be rapidly progressive, leading to respiratory failure. Confirmation of etiology by laboratory testing is warranted in such cases. Rapid antigen and immunofluorescence testing are useful screening tests, but have limited sensitivity. Confirmation of pandemic H1N1 influenza A infection can only be made by real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) or viral culture. The most effective preventive measure is annual influenza vaccination in selected individuals. Decisions to administer antiviral medications for influenza treatment or chemoprophylaxis should be based upon clinical and epidemiological factors, and should not be delayed by confirmatory laboratory testing results. Neuraminidase inhibitors (NI) are the agents of choice.