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)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Celma, Cristina C, Beard, Stuart, Douglas, Amy, Wong, Shan, Osafo, Nana-Kwame, Hannah, Matthew, Hale, Ashleigh, Huggins, Gabrielle, Ladhani, Shamez, Dunning, Jake
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