The Journal of infectious diseases · 2024
Clinical Severity of Enteric Viruses Detected Using a Quantitative Molecular Assay Compared With Conventional Assays in the Global Enteric Multicenter Study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cates Jordan, Powell Helen, Platts-Mills James, Nasrin Dilruba, Panchalingam Sandra, Sow Samba O, Traore Awa, Sur Dipika, Ramamurthy Thandavarayan, Zaidi Anita K M, Kabir Furqan, Faruque Abu S G, Ahmed Dilruba, Breiman Robert F, Omore Richard, Ochieng John Benjamin, Hossain M Jahangir, Antonio Martin, Mandomando Inácio, Vubil Delfino, Nataro James P, Levine Myron M, Parashar Umesh D, Kotloff Karen L, Tate Jacqueline E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Quantitative molecular assays are increasingly used for detection of enteric viruses.
METHODS: We compared the clinical severity using the modified Vesikari score (mVS) of enteric viruses detected by conventional assays (enzyme immunoassays [EIAs] for rotavirus and adenovirus 40/41 and conventional polymerase chain reaction for astrovirus, sapovirus, and norovirus) and a quantitative molecular assay (TaqMan Array Card [TAC]) among children aged 0-59 months in the Global Enteric Multicenter Study. For rotavirus and adenovirus 40/41, we compared severity between EIA-positive and TAC-positive cases assigned etiologies using different cycle threshold (Ct) cutoffs.
RESULTS: Using conventional assays, the median mVS (interquartile range) was 10 (8-11) for rotavirus, 9 (7-11) for adenovirus 40/41, 8 (6-10) for astrovirus, sapovirus, and norovirus GII, and 7 (6-9) for norovirus GI. Compared with rotavirus EIA-positive cases, the median mVS was 2 and 3 points lower for EIA-negative/TAC-positive cases with Ct <32.6 or Ct ≥32.6 and <35, respectively (P < .001). Adenovirus 40/41 EIA-positive and EIA-negative/TAC-positive cases were similar, regardless of Ct cutoff.
CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative molecular assays compared with conventional assays, such as EIA, may influence the severity of identified cases, especially for rotavirus. Cutoffs to assign etiology for quantitative assays should be considered in the design and interpretation of enteric virus studies.
METHODS: We compared the clinical severity using the modified Vesikari score (mVS) of enteric viruses detected by conventional assays (enzyme immunoassays [EIAs] for rotavirus and adenovirus 40/41 and conventional polymerase chain reaction for astrovirus, sapovirus, and norovirus) and a quantitative molecular assay (TaqMan Array Card [TAC]) among children aged 0-59 months in the Global Enteric Multicenter Study. For rotavirus and adenovirus 40/41, we compared severity between EIA-positive and TAC-positive cases assigned etiologies using different cycle threshold (Ct) cutoffs.
RESULTS: Using conventional assays, the median mVS (interquartile range) was 10 (8-11) for rotavirus, 9 (7-11) for adenovirus 40/41, 8 (6-10) for astrovirus, sapovirus, and norovirus GII, and 7 (6-9) for norovirus GI. Compared with rotavirus EIA-positive cases, the median mVS was 2 and 3 points lower for EIA-negative/TAC-positive cases with Ct <32.6 or Ct ≥32.6 and <35, respectively (P < .001). Adenovirus 40/41 EIA-positive and EIA-negative/TAC-positive cases were similar, regardless of Ct cutoff.
CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative molecular assays compared with conventional assays, such as EIA, may influence the severity of identified cases, especially for rotavirus. Cutoffs to assign etiology for quantitative assays should be considered in the design and interpretation of enteric virus studies.