JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Niedrig, M.
Right arrow Articles by Drosten, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Niedrig, M.
Right arrow Articles by Drosten, C.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, April 2004, p. 1753-1755, Vol. 42, No. 4
0095-1137/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.4.1753-1755.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

First International Quality Assurance Study on the Rapid Detection of Viral Agents of Bioterrorism

Matthias Niedrig,1 Herbert Schmitz,2 Stephan Becker,3 Stephan Günther,2 Jan ter Meulen,3,{dagger} Herman Meyer,4 Heinz Ellerbrok,1 Andreas Nitsche,1 Hans R. Gelderblom,1 and Christian Drosten2*

Robert Koch-Institute, Berlin,1 Bernhard-Nocht-Institute, Hamburg,2 Institute of Virology, Marburg,3 Institute of Microbiology of the Bundeswehr, München, Germany4

Received 15 August 2003/ Returned for modification 12 October 2003/ Accepted 31 December 2003


   ABSTRACT
Top
 Abstract
Text
 References
 
We have conducted an international quality assurance study of filovirus, Lassa virus, and orthopox virus PCR with 24 participants. Of the participating laboratories, 45.8 and 66.7% detected virus in all plasma samples, which contained >=5,000 and >=100,000 copies per ml, respectively. Sensitivity levels were not significantly different between viruses. False-negative results were attributable to a lack of sensitivity.


   TEXT
Top
 Abstract
 Text
References
 
Variola major virus, filoviruses, and Lassa virus are classified as category A bioterrorism agents (7). Attacks with these viruses might be carried out by liberation of weaponized material or dispersion of the agents (especially smallpox) through infected patients. Diagnostic capacities have recently been implemented by many countries to enable rapid detection of these special pathogens. PCR is widely used for testing (3, 6), but because of the restricted availability of virological and clinical material, the evaluation and standardization of test procedures is difficult. To provide insight into the level of diagnostic proficiency of responsible laboratories, we have conducted an external quality assurance (EQA) study through the European Network for Diagnostics of Imported Viral Diseases (ENIVD).

A total of 28 civilian and military laboratories from 17 countries were invited to participate in the study. Selection of invitees was based on the register of ENIVD members as well as on literature contributions relevant to the topic. The study was announced as an EQA study on diagnostic proficiency that would include the certification and publication of results in a comparative and anonymous manner. Of the invited laboratories, 24 from 14 (mainly European) countries enrolled in the study (see the acknowledgments section). All participants performed routine diagnostic services for the detection of orthopox virus, filovirus, and Lassa virus (12 laboratories), filovirus and Lassa viruses only (2 laboratories), or orthopox viruses only (10 laboratories).

Three test panels, containing a total of 33 lyophilized human plasma samples spiked with cell culture-derived and sequence-confirmed strains of orthopox virus, filovirus, and Lassa virus (including 5 samples negative for virus), were distributed. Samples positive for virus contained virus concentrations on the order of 102 to 107copies per ml (Table 1). The virus stock solutions used for generating the samples were proven to be noninfectious by cell culture after heat inactivation for 1 h at 56°C and gamma irradiation with 30 kGy. After dilution, aliquoting, and lyophilization, the expected DNA/RNA concentrations in resuspended samples were confirmed by real-time PCR (Table 1). The integrity of virus particles was tested by monkeypox virus electron microscopy, yielding detectable particles down to a concentration of 1,600 copies per ml. The participants were asked to analyze the material with the molecular methods they would routinely use in suspected human infections. Details about the methodologies used were also requested.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1. Results by samplea

 
The cumulative fraction of positive-testing results for all virus-containing samples in the three panels (filoviruses, Lassa virus, and orthopox viruses) ranged between 70 and 78% (Table 1), without significant differences between panels (chi-square test; P = 0.23). Detection rates in samples containing low virus concentrations ranged between 40 and 46%, and differences between panels were also not significant (Table 1) (P = 0.86 in chi-square test). The proportion of laboratories successfully detecting virus in a sample correlated significantly with the virus concentration (Table 1). False-negative reactions were therefore mainly attributable to lack of sensitivity.

As a criterion for good diagnostic sensitivity of individual laboratories, we required all samples that contained a virus concentration of >5,000 copies/ml to return positive test results; this concentration is above the analytical sensitivity limit of published PCR tests for the pathogens of interest (3, 4, 6). Less than half (45.8%) of the participating laboratories fulfilled this criterion, and even when only the samples containing 100,000 or more DNA/RNA copies per ml were taken into account, still only 66.7% of laboratories could detect virus in these samples.

To determine factors critical for sensitivity, the methods used by the participants were compared. For extraction of nucleic acids, most participants used one or more of the following methods: viral RNA Mini kit, DNA tissue and blood Mini kit, and RNeasy kit (all Qiagen), High Pure and Magnapure kits (Roche), and a procedure based on chaotropic salts and glass beads (2). Results for all methods in testing samples containing <=100,000 copies of virus per ml were subjected to an analysis of variance (Statgraphics version 5.0 software package; Statistical Graphics, Jena, Germany). No significant deviances from the grand mean at the 95% confidence level were observed for any method except with a Qiagen RNeasy kit. This method yielded a significantly lower rate of detection, but it should be noted that the manufacturer does not specify the kit for application to plasma samples. Because of the multitude of PCR tests used (12 published and 11 unpublished protocols), a reasonable statistical evaluation of these protocols was not possible. However, laboratories could be classified according to the use of in-house versus published methods as well as according to the use of conventional versus real-time PCR protocols. The use of real-time PCR versus conventional PCR in at least one test per laboratory, but not the use of in-house versus published methods, was identified to have a significant effect on a laboratory's overall sensitivity (better outcome in laboratories using real-time PCR [t test; P = 0.0069]). This may be attributable to the fact that real-time PCR is still a new technology preferentially applied in laboratories with a high level of expertise in PCR technology.

In the samples negative for virus included in the study, one laboratory reported two false-positive results (1x orthopox viruses and 1x Lassa virus). Such results are especially critical because of the serious public health disconcertion they can entail in a diagnostic situation.

In conclusion, this first voluntary quality assurance study suggests that most participants are able to correctly detect important viral agents of bioterrorism whereas a small but significant fraction of laboratories should review and optimize their diagnostic protocols. This is especially true since some aspects that complicate molecular diagnostics have not yet been taken into account in this preliminary study. As an example, a sample quality much worse than that of the test plasma used here might occur when real clinical cases have to be examined, requiring especially good sensitivity for compensation (5). On the other hand, experiences with EQA programs in other fields of molecular diagnostics have shown that results rapidly improved in subsequent studies (8). Well-characterized evaluation samples are an essential prerequisite for improving methods, and such material has been generated here for the first time for the viruses of interest. All samples are available through the ENIVD, and the results generated by participants in this study will be a valuable basis for others willing to establish or improve tests. Given the demand for biological preparedness (1, 7), regular participation in EQA programs will become more and more important for laboratories worldwide.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
The EQA was performed by ENIVD (funded by the European Community DG SANCO under the program AIDS and Other Communicable Diseases) (grant SI2.299717(2000CVG4-26). Work of the Bernhard-Nocht Institute was funded by the German Ministry of Health under grant 325-4539-85/3.

Laboratories within the following institutions took part in this study: Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece; Haartman Institute, Helsinki, Finland; Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine, Hamburg, Germany; University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; Centro Nacional de Microbiologia, Majadahonda, Spain; Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany; Army Medical and Veterinary Research Center, Rome, Italy; Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark; University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Swedish Institute for Infectious Diseases, Stockholm, Sweden; National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Tokyo, Japan; Sanitätsakademie der Bundeswehr, Munich, Germany; Armed Forces Scientific Institute, Munster, Germany; ARTUS GmbH, Hamburg, Germany; Robert Koch-Institute, Berlin, Germany; Institut für Lebensmittel, Arzneimittel und Tierseuchen, Berlin, Germany; Rijksinstituut Voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu RIVM, Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Loredana Nicoletti, Istituto Superiore di Sanitá, Rome, Italy; Health Canada, Winnipeg, Canada; CAMR, Porton Down, United Kingdom; and Institut Pasteur, Lyon, France.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Bernhard-Nocht-Institute for Tropical Medicine, Bernhard-Nocht Str. 74, 20359 Hamburg, Germany. Phone: 49-40-42818-421. Fax: 49-40-42818-378. E-mail: drosten{at}bni-hamburg.de. Back

{dagger} Present address: Crucell B.V., Leiden, The Netherlands. Back


   REFERENCES
Top
 Abstract
 Text
 References
 

  1. Beeching, N. J., D. A. Dance, A. R. Miller, and R. C. Spencer. 2002. Biological warfare and bioterrorism. BMJ 324:336-339.[Free Full Text]
  2. Boom, R., C. J. Sol, M. M. Salimans, C. L. Jansen, P. M. Wertheim-van Dillen, and J. van der Noordaa. 1990. Rapid and simple method for purification of nucleic acids. J. Clin. Microbiol. 28:495-503.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Drosten, C., S. Göttig, S. Schilling, M. Asper, M. Panning, H. Schmitz, and S. Günther. 2002. Rapid detection and quantification of RNA of Ebola and Marburg viruses, Lassa virus, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus, Rift Valley fever virus, Dengue virus, and yellow fever virus by real-time reverse transcription-PCR. J. Clin. Microbiol. 40:2323-2330.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Drosten, C., B. M. Kümmerer, H. Schmitz, and S. Guenther. 2003. Molecular diagnostics of viral hemorrhagic fevers. Antivir. Res. 57:61-87.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Drosten, C., M. Panning, S. Günther, and H. Schmitz. 2002. False-negative results of PCR with plasma of patients with severe viral hemorrhagic fever. J. Clin. Microbiol. 40:4394-4395.[Free Full Text]
  6. Espy, M. J., I. F. Cockerill, R. F. Meyer, M. D. Bowen, G. A. Poland, T. L. Hadfield, and T. F. Smith. 2002. Detection of smallpox virus DNA by LightCycler PCR. J. Clin. Microbiol. 40:1985-1988.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Rotz, L. D., A. S. Khan, S. R. Lillibridge, S. M. Ostroff, and J. M. Hughes. 2002. Public health assessment of potential biological terrorism agents. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 8:225-230.[Medline]
  8. Van Vliet, K. E., P. Muir, J. M. Echevarria, P. E. Klapper, G. M. Cleator, and A. M. Van Loon. 2001. Multicenter proficiency testing of nucleic acid amplification methods for the detection of enteroviruses. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39:3390-3392.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, April 2004, p. 1753-1755, Vol. 42, No. 4
0095-1137/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.4.1753-1755.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Niedrig, M.
Right arrow Articles by Drosten, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Niedrig, M.
Right arrow Articles by Drosten, C.

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS