...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of microbiology and biotechnology >Comparative analysis of the multiple test methods for the detection of pandemic influenza A/H1N1 2009 virus
【24h】

Comparative analysis of the multiple test methods for the detection of pandemic influenza A/H1N1 2009 virus

机译:多种检测大流行性流感A / H1N1 2009病毒的测试方法的比较分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Accurate and rapid diagnosis of Pandemic Influenza A/H1N1 2009 virus (H1N1 2009) infection is important for the prevention and control of influenza epidemics and the timely initiation of antiviral treatment. This study was conducted to evaluate the performance of several diagnostic tools for the detection of H1N1 2009. Flocked nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from 254 outpatients of suspected H1N1 2009 during October 2009. This study analyzed the performances of the RealTime Ready Inf A/H1N1 Detection Set (Roche), Influenza A (H1N1) Real-Time Detection Kit (Bionote), Seeplex Influenza A/B OneStep Typing Set [Seeplex Reverse Transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR)], BinaxNow Influenza A & B Test Kit [Binax Rapid Antigen Test (RAT)], and SD BIOLINE Influenza Ag kit (SD RAT). Roche and Bionote real-time RT-PCR showed identical results for the H1N1 2009 hemagglutinin gene. Compared with real-time RT-PCR, the sensitivities and specificities were 83.7% and 100% for Seeplex RT-PCR, 64.5% and 94.7% for Binax RAT, and 69.5% and 100% for SD RAT. The sensitivities of Seeplex RT-PCR, Binax RAT, and SD RAT in patients aged over 21 years were 73.7%, 47.4%, and 57.9%, respectively. The sensitivities of Seeplex RTPCR, Binax RAT, and SD RAT on the day of initial symptoms were mostly lower (68.8%, 56.3%, and 31.3%, respectively). In conclusion, multiplex RT-PCR and RAT for the detection of H1N1 2009 were significantly less sensitive than real-time RT-PCR. Moreover, a negative RAT may require more sensitive confirmatory assays, because it cannot be ruled out from influenza infection.
机译:准确快速诊断大流行性流感A / H1N1 2009病毒(H1N1 2009)感染对于预防和控制流感流行以及及时启动抗病毒治疗非常重要。这项研究旨在评估几种诊断H1N1 2009的诊断工具的性能。在2009年10月期间从254名疑似H1N1 2009门诊患者中收集了植绒的鼻咽拭子。该研究分析了RealTime Ready Inf A / H1N1检测套件的性能(Roche),甲型H1N1流感实时检测试剂盒(Bionote),Seeplex甲型/乙型流感单步输入法套装[Seeplex逆转录酶PCR(RT-PCR)],BinaxNow甲型和乙型流感检测试剂盒[Binax快速抗原检测(RAT)],以及SD BIOLINE流感Ag试剂盒(SD RAT)。 Roche和Bionote实时RT-PCR对H1N1 2009血凝素基因显示出相同的结果。与实时RT-PCR相比,Seeplex RT-PCR的敏感性和特异性分别为83.7%和100%,Binax RAT的敏感性和特异性为64.5%和94.7%,SD RAT的敏感性和特异性为69.5%和100%。 Seeplex RT-PCR,Binax RAT和SD RAT在21岁以上患者中的敏感性分别为73.7%,47.4%和57.9%。在初次出现症状的当天,Seeplex RTPCR,Binax RAT和SD RAT的敏感性大多较低(分别为68.8%,56.3%和31.3%)。总之,用于检测2009年H1N1病毒的多重RT-PCR和RAT的灵敏度明显低于实时RT-PCR。此外,阴性RAT可能需要更敏感的确认试验,因为不能排除流感感染。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号