Lack of impact of rapid identification of rotavirus-infected patients on nosocomial rotavirus infections.

The efficacy of rapid identification of rotavirus-infected patients in the control of nosocomial rotavirus infections on an infant and young toddler ward by use of a rotavirus antigen detection test on stool from patients with diarrhea was evaluated by comparing the rate of nosocomial rotavirus infection in children during two separate 5-week periods in the winters of 1984 and 1986. In contrast to 1984 rapid rotavirus antigen testing by latex agglutination of stool from patients with diarrhea was instituted in 1986, in addition to testing for rotavirus by enzyme immunoassay, to determine whether use of rapid antigen testing resulted in an increased incidence of appropriate isolation and a decrease in nosocomial infections. In 1986 rapid identification of rotavirus resulted in an increase in hospitalization of rotavirus-infected patients in single bed rooms from 68% to 100% (P = 0.02, chi square test) but no significant increase in the use of enteric precautions for these patients. The total number of cases of nosocomial rotavirus infection in the two periods did not differ. In both periods 11 cases occurred; the nosocomial infection rate in 1984 was 18.9 cases/1000 days of exposure whereas in 1986 it was 20.2 cases/1000 days. These findings indicate that the use of rapid rotavirus antigen testing of patients with diarrhea is not of appreciable benefit in preventing the nosocomial spread of rotavirus to infants on the ward.

Comparison of nine commercial immunoassays for the detection of rotavirus in fecal specimens.

One hundred fecal specimens obtained from patients with acute gastroenteritis were tested for rotavirus with nine commercial immunoassays to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of these assays. Kits evaluated included two monoclonal antibody-based enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) (Rotaclone and Pathfinder Rotavirus), three polyclonal antibody-based EIAs (Rotavirus Immunoassay, Rotazyme II, and Wellcozyme Rotavirus), and four latex agglutination assays (Rotastat, Virogen Rotatest, Meritec-Rotavirus, and The Wellcome Latex Test). Thirty-eight of the 100 specimens were found to contain rotavirus by a reference microplate EIA. The accuracy of the reference assay was determined by RNA electrophoresis and a blocking assay on discordant specimens. The two monoclonal antibody EIAs had superior sensitivities (100%) and identified two positive specimens which were negative by the reference method but positive by the blocking assay. Among the polyclonal EIAs, all had sensitivities of greater than 90%, but specificities were variable; Rotazyme II, with a specificity of 50%, showed considerable discrepancy from other polyclonal EIAs. The latex tests had sensitivities ranging from 70 to 90% and specificities of 80 to 100%. Latex agglutination tests were more rapid than EIAs and did not require expensive equipment. The final choice of assay system will depend on the cost, speed, and accuracy requirements of the clinical laboratory.