ABSTRACT
Following an increase in detection of enterovirus 68 (EV68) in community surveillance of respiratory infections in The Netherlands in 2010, epidemiological and virological analyses were performed to investigate the possible public health impact of EV68 infections. We retrospectively tested specimens collected from acute respiratory infections surveillance and through three children cohort studies conducted in The Netherlands from 1994 through 2010. A total of 71 of 13,310 (0.5%) specimens were positive for EV68, of which 67 (94%) were from symptomatic persons. Twenty-four (34%) of the EV68 positive specimens were collected during 2010. EV68-positive patients with respiratory symptoms showed significantly more dyspnea, cough and bronchitis than EV68-negative patients with respiratory symptoms. Phylogenetic analysis showed an increased VP1 gene diversity in 2010, suggesting that the increased number of EV68 detections in 2010 reflects a real epidemic. Clinical laboratories should consider enterovirus diagnostics in the differential diagnosis of patients presenting with respiratory symptoms.
Subject(s)
Enterovirus D, Human/isolation & purification , Enterovirus Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Child, Preschool , Enterovirus D, Human/classification , Enterovirus D, Human/genetics , Enterovirus Infections/virology , Epidemics , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Molecular Sequence Data , Netherlands/epidemiology , Phylogeny , Respiratory Tract Infections/virology , Retrospective Studies , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Influenza antigenic point-of-care (POC) tests are too insensitive for individual reliable diagnosis of influenza virus infections without additional laboratory confirmation. Molecular POC tests could be a valuable alternative. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the first influenza molecular POC test commercially available, the Cepheid Xpert Flu A Panel designed to simultaneously detect influenza A virus and subtype A(H1N1) 2009 pandemic virus, and compare it with in-house real-time RT-PCR (qRT-PCR). STUDY DESIGN: Clinical specimens positive for influenza virus and influenza virus isolates with different viral loads and of different type and subtype were used to determine the analytical reactivity and sensitivity. A panel of pathogen negative specimens and isolates of 19 different respiratory pathogens were used to determine the analytical specificity. RESULTS: Except A(H9N2) virus the Xpert Flu A Panel detected A(H1N1) seasonal and 2009 pandemic, A(H3N2), A(H5N2), A(H5N1) and A(H7N7) viruses and correctly subtyped A(H1N1) 2009 virus. Analytical sensitivity was similar to qRT-PCR in the range of 400-5000 viral particles per ml. However, of most subtypes some specimens with cycle threshold values greater than 30 in qRT-PCR and A(H1N1) 2009 specimens with inconsistent results in the qRT-PCR due to primer or probe mismatches were not detected in the Xpert Flu A Panel. Analytical specificity was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The Xpert Flu A Panel is the first commercially available POC molecular test for detection of influenza A virus and determination of the H1 2009 subtype and is analytically reasonable sensitive compared with qRT-PCR and highly specific and therefore a welcome alternative to antigenic POC tests.
