Cargando…
Retrospective analysis on confirmation rates for referred positive rotavirus samples in England, 2016 to 2017: implications for diagnosis and surveillance
BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic tests are commonly used by hospital laboratories in England to detect rotavirus (RV), and results are used to inform clinical management and support national surveillance of the infant rotavirus immunisation programme since 2013. In 2017, the Public Health England (PHE)...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7596921/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33124554 http://dx.doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.43.1900375 |
_version_ | 1783602216186150912 |
---|---|
author | Celma, Cristina C Beard, Stuart Douglas, Amy Wong, Shan Osafo, Nana-Kwame Hannah, Matthew Hale, Ashleigh Huggins, Gabrielle Ladhani, Shamez Dunning, Jake |
author_facet | Celma, Cristina C Beard, Stuart Douglas, Amy Wong, Shan Osafo, Nana-Kwame Hannah, Matthew Hale, Ashleigh Huggins, Gabrielle Ladhani, Shamez Dunning, Jake |
author_sort | Celma, Cristina C |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic tests are commonly used by hospital laboratories in England to detect rotavirus (RV), and results are used to inform clinical management and support national surveillance of the infant rotavirus immunisation programme since 2013. In 2017, the Public Health England (PHE) national reference laboratory for enteric viruses observed that the presence of RV could not be confirmed by PCR in a proportion of RV-positive samples referred for confirmatory detection. AIM: We aimed to compare the positivity rate of detection methods used by hospital laboratories with the PHE confirmatory test rate. METHODS: Rotavirus specimens testing positive at local hospital laboratories were re-tested at the PHE national reference laboratory using a PCR test. Confirmatory results were compared to original results from the PHE laboratory information management system. RESULTS: Hospital laboratories screened 70.1% (2,608/3,721) of RV samples using immunochromatographic assay (IC) or rapid tests, 15.5% (578/3,721) using enzyme immunoassays (EIA) and 14.4% (535/3,721) using PCR. Overall, 1,011/3,721 (27.2%) locally RV-positive samples referred to PHE in 2016 and 2017 failed RV detection using the PHE reference laboratory PCR test. Confirmation rates were 66.9% (1,746/2,608) for the IC tests, 87.4% (505/578) for the EIA and 86.4% (465/535) for the PCR assays. Seasonal confirmation rate discrepancies were also evident for IC tests. CONCLUSIONS: This report highlights high false positive rates with the most commonly used RV screening tests and emphasises the importance of implementing verified confirmatory tests for RV detections. This has implications for clinical diagnosis and national surveillance. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7596921 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75969212020-11-03 Retrospective analysis on confirmation rates for referred positive rotavirus samples in England, 2016 to 2017: implications for diagnosis and surveillance Celma, Cristina C Beard, Stuart Douglas, Amy Wong, Shan Osafo, Nana-Kwame Hannah, Matthew Hale, Ashleigh Huggins, Gabrielle Ladhani, Shamez Dunning, Jake Euro Surveill Research BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic tests are commonly used by hospital laboratories in England to detect rotavirus (RV), and results are used to inform clinical management and support national surveillance of the infant rotavirus immunisation programme since 2013. In 2017, the Public Health England (PHE) national reference laboratory for enteric viruses observed that the presence of RV could not be confirmed by PCR in a proportion of RV-positive samples referred for confirmatory detection. AIM: We aimed to compare the positivity rate of detection methods used by hospital laboratories with the PHE confirmatory test rate. METHODS: Rotavirus specimens testing positive at local hospital laboratories were re-tested at the PHE national reference laboratory using a PCR test. Confirmatory results were compared to original results from the PHE laboratory information management system. RESULTS: Hospital laboratories screened 70.1% (2,608/3,721) of RV samples using immunochromatographic assay (IC) or rapid tests, 15.5% (578/3,721) using enzyme immunoassays (EIA) and 14.4% (535/3,721) using PCR. Overall, 1,011/3,721 (27.2%) locally RV-positive samples referred to PHE in 2016 and 2017 failed RV detection using the PHE reference laboratory PCR test. Confirmation rates were 66.9% (1,746/2,608) for the IC tests, 87.4% (505/578) for the EIA and 86.4% (465/535) for the PCR assays. Seasonal confirmation rate discrepancies were also evident for IC tests. CONCLUSIONS: This report highlights high false positive rates with the most commonly used RV screening tests and emphasises the importance of implementing verified confirmatory tests for RV detections. This has implications for clinical diagnosis and national surveillance. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) 2020-10-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7596921/ /pubmed/33124554 http://dx.doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.43.1900375 Text en This article is copyright of the authors or their affiliated institutions, 2020. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) Licence. You may share and adapt the material, but must give appropriate credit to the source, provide a link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Research Celma, Cristina C Beard, Stuart Douglas, Amy Wong, Shan Osafo, Nana-Kwame Hannah, Matthew Hale, Ashleigh Huggins, Gabrielle Ladhani, Shamez Dunning, Jake Retrospective analysis on confirmation rates for referred positive rotavirus samples in England, 2016 to 2017: implications for diagnosis and surveillance |
title | Retrospective analysis on confirmation rates for referred positive rotavirus samples in England, 2016 to 2017: implications for diagnosis and surveillance |
title_full | Retrospective analysis on confirmation rates for referred positive rotavirus samples in England, 2016 to 2017: implications for diagnosis and surveillance |
title_fullStr | Retrospective analysis on confirmation rates for referred positive rotavirus samples in England, 2016 to 2017: implications for diagnosis and surveillance |
title_full_unstemmed | Retrospective analysis on confirmation rates for referred positive rotavirus samples in England, 2016 to 2017: implications for diagnosis and surveillance |
title_short | Retrospective analysis on confirmation rates for referred positive rotavirus samples in England, 2016 to 2017: implications for diagnosis and surveillance |
title_sort | retrospective analysis on confirmation rates for referred positive rotavirus samples in england, 2016 to 2017: implications for diagnosis and surveillance |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7596921/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33124554 http://dx.doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.43.1900375 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT celmacristinac retrospectiveanalysisonconfirmationratesforreferredpositiverotavirussamplesinengland2016to2017implicationsfordiagnosisandsurveillance AT beardstuart retrospectiveanalysisonconfirmationratesforreferredpositiverotavirussamplesinengland2016to2017implicationsfordiagnosisandsurveillance AT douglasamy retrospectiveanalysisonconfirmationratesforreferredpositiverotavirussamplesinengland2016to2017implicationsfordiagnosisandsurveillance AT wongshan retrospectiveanalysisonconfirmationratesforreferredpositiverotavirussamplesinengland2016to2017implicationsfordiagnosisandsurveillance AT osafonanakwame retrospectiveanalysisonconfirmationratesforreferredpositiverotavirussamplesinengland2016to2017implicationsfordiagnosisandsurveillance AT hannahmatthew retrospectiveanalysisonconfirmationratesforreferredpositiverotavirussamplesinengland2016to2017implicationsfordiagnosisandsurveillance AT haleashleigh retrospectiveanalysisonconfirmationratesforreferredpositiverotavirussamplesinengland2016to2017implicationsfordiagnosisandsurveillance AT hugginsgabrielle retrospectiveanalysisonconfirmationratesforreferredpositiverotavirussamplesinengland2016to2017implicationsfordiagnosisandsurveillance AT ladhanishamez retrospectiveanalysisonconfirmationratesforreferredpositiverotavirussamplesinengland2016to2017implicationsfordiagnosisandsurveillance AT dunningjake retrospectiveanalysisonconfirmationratesforreferredpositiverotavirussamplesinengland2016to2017implicationsfordiagnosisandsurveillance |