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

J 2018

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

MOUTELIKOVA, R., Monika DVOŘÁKOVÁ HEROLDOVÁ, Veronika HOLÁ, P. SAUER, J. PRODELALOVA et. al.

Basic information

Original name

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

Authors

MOUTELIKOVA, R. (203 Czech Republic, guarantor), Monika DVOŘÁKOVÁ HEROLDOVÁ (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution), Veronika HOLÁ (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution), P. SAUER (203 Czech Republic) and J. PRODELALOVA (203 Czech Republic)

Edition

Epidemiologie, mikrobiologie, imunologie, Praha, Česká lékařská společnost Jana Evangelisty Purkyně, 2018, 1210-7913

Other information

Language

English

Type of outcome

Článek v odborném periodiku

Field of Study

10606 Microbiology

Country of publisher

Czech Republic

Confidentiality degree

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

Impact factor

Impact factor: 0.397

RIV identification code

RIV/00216224:14110/18:00106973

Organization unit

Faculty of Medicine

UT WoS

000455471600003

Keywords in English

rotavirus A; enzymatic immunoassay; immunochromato; graphic test; RT-qPCR

Abstract

V originále

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.

Links

NV16-29937A, research and development project

Name: Komplexní analýza humánních rotavirových infekcí v České republice včetně atypických a emergentních kmenů směřující k vývoji nových detekčních metod

Citovat

MOUTELIKOVA, R., Monika DVOŘÁKOVÁ HEROLDOVÁ, Veronika HOLÁ, P. SAUER and J. PRODELALOVA. Human rotavirus A detection: Comparison of enzymatic immunoassay and rapid chromatographic test with two quantitative RT-PCR assays. Epidemiologie, mikrobiologie, imunologie. Praha: Česká lékařská společnost Jana Evangelisty Purkyně, 2018, vol. 67, No 3, p. 110-113. ISSN 1210-7913.

@article{1499358,
   author = {Moutelikova, R. and Dvořáková Heroldová, Monika and Holá, Veronika and Sauer, P. and Prodelalova, J.},
   article_location = {Praha},
   article_number = {3},
   keywords = {rotavirus A; enzymatic immunoassay; immunochromato; graphic test; RT-qPCR},
   language = {eng},
   issn = {1210-7913},
   journal = {Epidemiologie, mikrobiologie, imunologie},
   title = {Human rotavirus A detection: Comparison of enzymatic immunoassay and rapid chromatographic test with two quantitative RT-PCR assays},
   volume = {67},
   year = {2018}
}

TY  - JOUR
ID  - 1499358
AU  - Moutelikova, R. - Dvořáková Heroldová, Monika - Holá, Veronika - Sauer, P. - Prodelalova, J.
PY  - 2018
TI  - Human rotavirus A detection: Comparison of enzymatic immunoassay and rapid chromatographic test with two quantitative RT-PCR assays
JF  - Epidemiologie, mikrobiologie, imunologie
VL  - 67
IS  - 3
SP  - 110-113
EP  - 110-113
PB  - Česká lékařská společnost Jana Evangelisty Purkyně
SN  - 12107913
KW  - rotavirus A
KW  - enzymatic immunoassay
KW  - immunochromato
KW  - graphic test
KW  - RT-qPCR
N2  - 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.
ER  -

MOUTELIKOVA, R., Monika DVOŘÁKOVÁ HEROLDOVÁ, Veronika HOLÁ, P. SAUER and J. PRODELALOVA. Human rotavirus A detection: Comparison of enzymatic immunoassay and rapid chromatographic test with two quantitative RT-PCR assays. \textit{Epidemiologie, mikrobiologie, imunologie}. Praha: Česká lékařská společnost Jana Evangelisty Purkyně, 2018, vol.~67, No~3, p.~110-113. ISSN~1210-7913.

Detailed Information on Publication Record