Informace o publikaci
Human rotavirus A detection: Comparison of enzymatic immunoassay and rapid chromatographic test with two quantitative RT-PCR assays
| Autoři | |
|---|---|
| Rok publikování | 2018 |
| Druh | Článek v odborném periodiku |
| Časopis / Zdroj | Epidemiologie, mikrobiologie, imunologie |
| Fakulta / Pracoviště MU | |
| Citace | |
| Klíčová slova | rotavirus A; enzymatic immunoassay; immunochromato; graphic test; RT-qPCR |
| Popis | 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 (R) Rotavirus) and with rapid diagnostic immunochromatographic test (RDT) (IMMUNOQUICK (R) No-Rot-Adeno). As a reference method a commercial RT-qPCR test was used (Primerdesign (TM) Genesig (R) 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 (Cl >= 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). Comparisons 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. |
| Související projekty: |