Laboratory-based assessment of influenza in German ambulant patients from 1998 to 2008.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, the cost for PCR diagnosis of influenza in ambulant patients was not covered by the national statutory health insurance system until 2008. Therefore, cell culture was the standard method applied for routine diagnosis. We have prospectively compared a 1-day rapid cell culture assay (RCA) with conventional cell culture (CCC) during the influenza seasons from 1997/1998 to 2007/2008 and with real-time PCR analysis during the influenza seasons 2003/2004 and 2006/2007. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study is based on 4,262 respiratory samples obtained from ambulant patients between January 1998 and May 2008. The RCA was performed in microtiter plates that were stained with monoclonal antibodies to influenza virus A and B 16 h after inoculation. RESULTS: A total of 1,221 specimens were found to be positive by the cell culture methods - 1,143 (93.6%) by the RCA and 1,012 (82.9%) by the CCC. The sensitivity of the RCA and CCC versus PCR was 75.4% (221/293) and 58% (170/293), respectively. The specificity of both cell culture assays versus PCR was 100%. Influenza A represented 79.3% of the cases diagnosed. An increased activity of influenza was observed between January and March, with the rate of influenza-positive cases being highest for kindergarten and school-aged children. CONCLUSION: While PCR is the most sensitive assay for the diagnosis of influenza, the RCA can still be used for diagnosis and surveillance of this disease. Based on our findings and given the known fact that influenza antibodies reach a plateau 2-4 weeks after immunization, the optimal time for vaccination in Germany is from October through November. Kindergarten and school-aged children represent an important reservoir of infection. Consequently, routine immunization should be considered for this age group to prevent the spread of influenza.

Laboratory approaches to the diagnosis of adenovirus infection depending on clinical manifestations.

BACKGROUND: While commercial enzyme immunoassays (EIA) intended for the detection of adenovirus in fecal specimens are widely used, there are no rapid, convenient, and sensitive commercial tests available for the detection of adenoviruses in respiratory and conjunctival specimens. The applicability of EIA for the detection of adenovirus in stool and throat samples was investigated. One-day rapid culture assay (RCA) for the detection of adenovirus in respiratory and conjunctival specimens was developed and evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Stool samples from patients with gastroenteritis were tested by adenovirus EIA and by cell culture using human embryonic lung cells (HEL) and Graham 293 cells. Blood and stool samples from two BMT patients were also tested for adenovirus by PCR for at least 6 months. Throat specimens from patients with respiratory infections and conjunctival specimens were used for the evaluation of 1-day RCA compared with conventional adenovirus isolation in Graham 293 cells. RESULTS: A total of 3,860 stool samples were tested by EIA Ridascreen, 8,169 by Novitec, and 2,218 by ProSpectT yielding 135 (3.5%), 308 (3.7%), and 77 (3.5%) positive results, respectively. From 305 Ridascreen- and 340 Novitec-negative stool samples, adenoviruses were isolated in three (0.9%) and eight (2.4%) cases, respectively, including two patients undergoing BMT. Multiple sequential stool samples from one BMT patient were repeatedly negative by EIA, but positive by PCR and cell culture. Graham 293 cells were better suited for isolation of adenovirus than HEL. EIA proved unreliable for detecting adenovirus in throat swabs. The sensitivity and specificity of RCA in throat swabs were 90% (37/41) and 100% (64/64), respectively, and 76% (16/21) and 100% (132/132) in conjunctival specimens, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, EIA is sufficiently sensitive for the diagnosis of adenovirus-associated diarrhea. However, it may not be sensitive enough to detect adenovirus in immunocompromised patients undergoing BMT and shedding very few viral particles in stools. Thus, in such cases, a more sensitive assay, such as PCR, is recommended. Furthermore, EIA is not sufficiently sensitive for the reliable detection of adenoviruses in throat swabs. One-day RCA may be useful for the detection of adenoviruses in respiratory and conjunctival specimens.