Rapid laboratory confirmation of the 2025 Sudan Virus Disease (Svd) index case in Uganda.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Nsawotebba Andrew, Nabadda Susan, Nakintu Valeria, Ssewanyana Isaac, Wayengera Misaki, Kabazzi Jonathan, Balinandi Stephen, Pimundu Godfrey, Muyigi Tonny, Ayitewala Alisen, Gidudu Samuel, Otita Morgan, Mugerwa Ibrahim, Rubangakene Moses, Ikoba Sulaiman, Kalungi Sam, Wanyenze Rhoda, Ariën Kevin K, Namboozo Eunice, Kanamwanji Benedict, Ssekyondwa Steven, Kasujja Ronald, Kitwe Derrick, Dambya Catherine, Morunyanga Innocent, Bahatungire Reginald Rony, Kakooza Francis, Joloba Moses, Kagirita Atek, Muruta Allan, Kaleebu Pontiano, Kyobe Henry, Olaro Charles, Atwine Diana, Aceng Jane Ruth
Аннотация
METHODS: We leveraged existing surveillance infrastructure to collect, package, transport, test, and report results for the index-confirmed case. Testing was conducted within the framework of the established laboratory quality and bio-risk management system at the Central Emergency Response and Surveillance Laboratory. The workflow consisted of sample delivery, reception, preparation, nucleic acid extraction, master mix preparation, quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain Reaction (RT-qPCR), differential diagnosis for VHFs, parallel PCR testing and typing for Sudan virus (SUDV) confirmation, result validation, and reporting.
RESULTS: The sample tested negative for Marburg, Yellow fever, Rift Valley fever, and Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever viruses. However, it tested positive for SUDV. Four parallel tests utilizing the Real Star® Filovirus Screen RT-PCR Kit 1.0 (Altona Diagnostics GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) on CFX96 Bio-Rad platforms, with varying sample volumes (140 µL, 90 µL, 50 µL, and 30 µL diluted with nuclease-free water), confirmed the presence of SUDV. The 50 µL sample had the lowest Ct values for the Orthoebolavirus target, while the 30 µL sample had the lowest Ct values for the internal control target. The turnaround time, from sample reception to results reporting to the Ministry of Health leadership, was less than 12 h.
CONCLUSION: Mortality surveillance of VHFs is vital for the swift identification of Filovirus outbreaks in high-risk areas. Comprehensive VHFs panel testing is crucial for detecting pathogens in suspected cases. Sample dilution impacts diagnostic sensitivity, making optimized testing protocols crucial for precise molecular diagnostics. A rapid turnaround time is critical to outbreaks, enabling timely public health decisions such as case isolation, contact tracing, and resource allocation.