Virology journal · 2014
Sampling variability between two mid-turbinate swabs of the same patient has implications for influenza viral load monitoring.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Van Wesenbeeck Liesbeth, Meeuws Hanne, D'Haese David, Ispas Gabriela, Houspie Lieselot, Van Ranst Marc, Stuyver Lieven J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: With the clinical development of several antiviral intervention strategies for influenza, it becomes crucial to explore viral load shedding in the nasal cavity as a biomarker for treatment success, but also to explore sampling strategies for sensible and reliable virus collection.
FINDINGS: In this study, 244 patients suffering from Influenza like Illness and/or acute respiratory tract infection were enrolled. Sampling was done using mid-turbinate flocked swabs and two swabs per patient were collected (one swab per nostril). The influenza A viral loads of two mid-turbinate flocked swabs (one for each nostril) per patient were compared and we have also assessed whether normalization for human cellular DNA in the swabs could be useful. The Influenza mid-turbinate nasal swab testing resulted in considerable sampling variability that could not be normalized against co-isolated human cellular DNA.
CONCLUSIONS: Influenza viral load monitoring in nasal swabs could be very valuable as virological endpoints in clinical trials to monitor treatment efficacy, in analogy to HIV, HBV & HCV viral load monitoring. However, the differences between left and right nostrils, as observed in this study, highlight the importance of proper sampling and the need for standardized sampling procedures.
FINDINGS: In this study, 244 patients suffering from Influenza like Illness and/or acute respiratory tract infection were enrolled. Sampling was done using mid-turbinate flocked swabs and two swabs per patient were collected (one swab per nostril). The influenza A viral loads of two mid-turbinate flocked swabs (one for each nostril) per patient were compared and we have also assessed whether normalization for human cellular DNA in the swabs could be useful. The Influenza mid-turbinate nasal swab testing resulted in considerable sampling variability that could not be normalized against co-isolated human cellular DNA.
CONCLUSIONS: Influenza viral load monitoring in nasal swabs could be very valuable as virological endpoints in clinical trials to monitor treatment efficacy, in analogy to HIV, HBV & HCV viral load monitoring. However, the differences between left and right nostrils, as observed in this study, highlight the importance of proper sampling and the need for standardized sampling procedures.