Previous Article | Next Article 
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, January 2000, p. 429-430, Vol. 38, No. 1
Clinical Virology Laboratory, Yale
New Haven Hospital,1 and Department of
Laboratory Medicine,2 Yale University School of
Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
Received 21 June 1999/Returned for modification 20 August
1999/Accepted 27 September 1999
Cytospin-enhanced direct fluorescent-antibody assay (DFA) detected
49 (92.5%) and rapid membrane enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
(ELISA) detected 40 (75.5%) of 53 influenza virus A-positive samples.
All 15 positive nasopharyngeal aspirates from children were detected by
both tests. In contrast, 34 of 38 (89.5%) positive swabs from adults
were detected by DFA, but only 25 (66%) were detected by ELISA.
Influenza virus A is a major cause
of morbidity and mortality, especially in the elderly and in those with
chronic cardiac or pulmonary conditions. The impact of influenza virus
and other respiratory viruses on immunocompromised hosts has been
increasingly recognized (9). Rapid diagnosis benefits
patient management, helps to prevent nosocomial transmission, and
allows early institution of amantidine or rimantidine treatment, as
well as newer antiviral therapies (3).
Rapid membrane enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)
tests can be completed within 15 min and do not require extensive technical expertise or equipment. This test can be implemented in
doctors' offices or in laboratories without virology expertise. However, reported studies have shown a wide variation in sensitivity of
detection, ranging from 67 to 100% (6-8). Direct
fluorescent-antibody assay (DFA) can provide excellent results, but it
requires greater technical expertise, is more labor intensive, and
requires adequate numbers of ciliated epithelial cells.
In this study, rapid membrane ELISA was compared with cytospin-enhanced
DFA by using routine samples submitted to the clinical virology
laboratory by a variety of clinicians. The impact of sample type on
test results was examined.
Sixty nasopharyngeal (NP) or throat swabs, 30 NP aspirates, and two
bronchoalveolar lavage specimens were submitted to the clinical
virology laboratory for diagnosis of influenza virus A. All 30 NP
aspirates were obtained from children, and 59 of the 60 swabs were from adults.
Samples were divided into three aliquots: one aliquot was applied to
slides by cytocentrifugation for DFA, one aliquot was tested with the
Directigen Flu A ELISA (Becton Dickinson, Cockeysville, Md.), and one
aliquot was cultured in rhesus monkey kidney cell cultures for 25 of
the antigen-negative samples (4). After the addition of 5 ml
of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), specimens for DFA were centrifuged
at 700 × g for 5 min. Each cell pellet was resuspended
in 3 parts PBS, then 200 µl was cytocentrifuged (Cytospin 3; Shandon,
Inc., Pittsburgh, Pa.) for 4 min at 800 rpm. Excess cell suspensions
were stored for 2 to 3 days at 4°C. After air drying, slides were
fixed in cold acetone, then stained with SimulFluor Influenza A/B
reagent (Chemicon International, Temecula, Calif.), and were examined
with an epifluorescence microscope. Influenza virus A-positive
respiratory epithelial cells exhibited characteristic apple-green,
granular nuclear, and/or cytoplasmic staining. For Directigen Flu A
ELISA, specimens were tested according to the manufacturer's instructions.
Influenza virus A was detected in 15 NP aspirates by both DFA and ELISA
(100% agreement). In contrast, only 24 of 38 positive swabs were
detected by both DFA and ELISA. Ten swabs were positive by DFA only,
one was positive by ELISA only, and three were positive by culture
only. Thus, DFA detected 89.5% and ELISA detected 66% of influenza
virus A-positive swabs, a significant difference (P = 0.007, McNemar's test). When results for all specimen types were
combined (Table 1), the overall
sensitivity was 92.5% for cytospin-enhanced DFA and was 75.5% for
ELISA (P = 0.007, McNemar's test).
0095-1137/0/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Impact of Sample Type on Rapid Detection of
Influenza Virus A by Cytospin-Enhanced Immunofluorescence and Membrane
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
TEXT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
TABLE 1.
Comparison of Cytospin-DFA and ELISA for detection of all
influenza virus A-positive samples
Compared with culture, membrane ELISA tests offer a rapid diagnosis in a simple format and are thus useful to clinicians, especially in doctors' offices. Published studies of the Directigen Flu A ELISA have reported widely varying sensitivities, ranging from 67 to 100% (6-8). The study by Waner et al. reported a sensitivity of Directigen Flu A of 100%, compared to the results of isolation in cell culture and DFA. NP washes from children less than 10 years old comprised over 90% of samples tested (8). Similarly, all 15 positive NP aspirates obtained from children in our study were detected by Directigen Flu A ELISA. NP aspirates and washes are more reliable than swabs (1), and young children generally shed higher titers of virus than do adults.
Leonardi et al., who investigated geriatric patients, reported a sensitivity of 86.8% for Directigen Flu A ELISA. For the purpose of the study, however, staff members were specifically trained in specimen collection. NP and throat swabs were vigorously collected early in illness and were combined in one specimen vial for testing (6). In contrast, Steed et al. tested samples submitted to a reference laboratory from patients ranging in age from 2 weeks to 84 years. Sensitivity was 67% for ELISA and only 47% for DFA compared with culture (7).
DFA enables the technologist to assess sample quality microscopically. If the laboratory is on site, the clinician can be informed of poor sample quality and another sample can be requested or the test report can be modified. Nevertheless, if a substantial proportion of tested samples are deemed inadequate for DFA, much time and reagents are wasted. The use of a cytospin to prepare slides for DFA reduces inadequate smears, improves cell morphology, and enhances the accuracy of interpretation (2, 5).
Sample collection designed to maximize the amount of virus available for detection will improve test results for both ELISA and DFA. In many diagnostic laboratories, however, control over sample collection is minimal, and the results obtained may differ substantially from studies using optimal sample collection.
In this study, we demonstrated that, overall, cytospin-enhanced DFA detected significantly more influenza virus A-positive samples than did the rapid membrane ELISA Directigen FLU-A. Sample type, and possibly patient age, had a major impact on test sensitivity, especially for the ELISA, and could explain discrepancies among previous studies. The difference in detection rate between DFA and ELISA was seen exclusively in swabs obtained from adults and not in NP aspirates from children, presumably due to the higher titers of virus in the latter samples. These problems may be reduced, but probably not eliminated, by greater efforts to educate and train clinicians to optimize sample collection.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We acknowledge the outstanding technical work of Terri Constantinidi, Clare Dyer, Robin Garner, Rex Paternoster, and Lisa Voglesong and the support of Ruth Ferro.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, P.O. Box 208035, New Haven, CT 06520-8035. Phone: (203) 688-3475. Fax: (203) 688-8177. E-mail: marie.landry{at}yale.edu.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
Top
Abstract
Text
References
|
|---|
| 1. |
Ahluwalia, G.,
J. Embree,
P. McNicol,
B. Law, and G. Hammond.
1987.
Comparison of nasopharyngeal aspirate and nasopharyngeal swab specimens for respiratory syncytial virus diagnosis by cell culture, indirect immunofluorescence assay, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
25:763-767 |
| 2. |
Doing, K. M.,
M. A. Jerkofsky,
E. G. Dow, and J. A. Jellison.
1998.
Use of fluorescent-antibody staining of cytocentrifuge-prepared smears in combination with cell culture for direct detection of respiratory viruses.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
36:2112-2114 |
| 3. |
Hayden, F. G.,
A. D. Osterhaus,
J. J. Treanor,
D. M. Fleming,
F. Y. Aoki,
K. G. Nicholson,
A. M. Bohnen,
H. M. Hirst,
O. Keene, and K. Wightman.
1997.
Efficacy and safety of the neuraminidase inhibitor zanamivir in the treatment of influenzavirus infections. GG167 Influenza Study Group.
N. Engl. J. Med.
337:874-880 |
| 4. | Hsiung, G. D., C. K. Y. Fong, and M. L. Landry. 1994. Hsiung's diagnostic virology, 4th ed. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn. |
| 5. | Landry, M. L., D. Ferguson, and J. Wlochowski. 1997. Detection of herpes simplex virus in clinical specimens by cytospin-enhanced direct immunofluorescence. J. Clin. Microbiol. 35:302-304[Abstract]. |
| 6. |
Leonardi, G. P.,
H. Leib,
G. S. Birkhead,
C. Smith,
P. Costello, and W. Conron.
1994.
Comparison of rapid detection methods for influenza A virus and their value in health-care management of institutionalized geriatric patients.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
32:70-74 |
| 7. | Steed, L. L., V. C. Salmon, and J. C. Overall, Jr. 1994. Identification of influenza A by shell vial culture and two commercially available antigen detection methods. Clin. Diag. Virol. 2:261-269[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 8. |
Waner, J. L.,
S. J. Todd,
H. Shalaby,
P. Murphy, and L. V. Wall.
1991.
Comparison of Directigen FLU-A with viral isolation and direct immunofluorescence for the rapid detection and identification of influenza A virus.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
29:479-482 |
| 9. | Yousuf, H. M., J. Englund, R. Couch, K. Rolston, J. Goodrich, V. Lewis, N. Q. Mirza, M. Andreef, C. Koller, L. Elting, G. P. Bodey, and E. Whimbey. 1997. Influenza among hospitalized adults with leukemia. Clin. Infect. Dis. 24:1095-1099[Medline]. |
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, January 2000, p. 429-430, Vol. 38, No. 1
0095-1137/0/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Liao, R. S., Tomalty, L. L., Majury, A., Zoutman, D. E.
(2009). Comparison of Viral Isolation and Multiplex Real-Time Reverse Transcription-PCR for Confirmation of Respiratory Syncytial Virus and Influenza Virus Detection by Antigen Immunoassays. J. Clin. Microbiol.
47: 527-532
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Takahashi, H., Norman, S. A., Mather, E. L., Patterson, B. K.
(2008). Evaluation of the NanoChip 400 System for Detection of Influenza A and B, Respiratory Syncytial, and Parainfluenza Viruses. J. Clin. Microbiol.
46: 1724-1727
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Leland, D. S., Ginocchio, C. C.
(2007). Role of Cell Culture for Virus Detection in the Age of Technology. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
20: 49-78
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Agoritsas, K., Mack, K., Bonsu, B. K., Goodman, D., Salamon, D., Marcon, M. J.
(2006). Evaluation of the Quidel QuickVue Test for Detection of Influenza A and B Viruses in the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Setting by Use of Three Specimen Collection Methods.. J. Clin. Microbiol.
44: 2638-2641
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Daley, P., Castriciano, S., Chernesky, M., Smieja, M.
(2006). Comparison of flocked and rayon swabs for collection of respiratory epithelial cells from uninfected volunteers and symptomatic patients.. J. Clin. Microbiol.
44: 2265-2267
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Fader, R. C.
(2005). Comparison of the Binax NOW Flu A Enzyme Immunochromatographic Assay and R-Mix Shell Vial Culture for the 2003-2004 Influenza Season. J. Clin. Microbiol.
43: 6133-6135
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Ruest, A., Michaud, S., Deslandes, S., Frost, E. H.
(2003). Comparison of the Directigen Flu A+B Test, the QuickVue Influenza Test, and Clinical Case Definition to Viral Culture and Reverse Transcription-PCR for Rapid Diagnosis of Influenza Virus Infection. J. Clin. Microbiol.
41: 3487-3493
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Habib-Bein, N. F., Beckwith, W. H. III, Mayo, D., Landry, M. L.
(2003). Comparison of SmartCycler Real-Time Reverse Transcription-PCR Assay in a Public Health Laboratory with Direct Immunofluorescence and Cell Culture Assays in a Medical Center for Detection of Influenza A Virus. J. Clin. Microbiol.
41: 3597-3601
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Landry, M. L., Ferguson, D.
(2003). Suboptimal Detection of Influenza Virus in Adults by the Directigen Flu A+B Enzyme Immunoassay and Correlation of Results with the Number of Antigen-Positive Cells Detected by Cytospin Immunofluorescence. J. Clin. Microbiol.
41: 3407-3409
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Hamilton, M. S., Abel, D. M., Ballam, Y. J., Otto, M. K., Nickell, A. F., Pence, L. M., Appleman, J. R., Shimasaki, C. D., Achyuthan, K. E.
(2002). Clinical Evaluation of the ZstatFlu-II Test: a Chemiluminescent Rapid Diagnostic Test for Influenza Virus. J. Clin. Microbiol.
40: 2331-2334
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Danes, C., Gonzalez-Martin, J., Pumarola, T., Rano, A., Benito, N., Torres, A., Moreno, A., Rovira, M., Puig de la Bellacasa, J.
(2002). Pulmonary Infiltrates in Immunosuppressed Patients: Analysis of a Diagnostic Protocol. J. Clin. Microbiol.
40: 2134-2140
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Chan, K. H., Maldeis, N., Pope, W., Yup, A., Ozinskas, A., Gill, J., Seto, W. H., Shortridge, K. F., Peiris, J. S. M.
(2002). Evaluation of the Directigen FluA+B Test for Rapid Diagnosis of Influenza Virus Type A and B Infections. J. Clin. Microbiol.
40: 1675-1680
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Wenzel, R. P.
(2000). Expanding the Treatment Options for Influenza. JAMA
283: 1057-1059
[Full Text]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»