Dengue Virus NS1 Protein as a Diagnostic Marker: Commercially Available ELISA and Comparison to qRT-PCR and Serological Diagnostic Assays Currently Used by the State of Florida.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The proper management of patients infected with dengue virus requires early detection. Here, real-time molecular assays have proven useful but have limitations, whereas ELISAs that detect antibodies are still favored but results are obtained too late to be of clinical value. The production of DENV NS1 peaks early during infection and its detection can combine the advantages of both diagnostic approaches.Methods
This study compared assays currently used for detecting DENV infection at the Florida Department of Health including anti-DENV IgM and IgG ELISAs as well as qRT-PCR, against a commercially available DENV NS1 ELISA. These comparisons were made among a group of 21 human sera.Results
Nine of 14 (64.3%) DENV qRT-PCR+ samples were also DENV NS1+. Interestingly, the 5 NS1- samples that were qRT-PCR+ were additionally IgM- and IgG+ suggesting a nonprimary infection. Compared to qRT-PCR, the NS1 assay had a sensitivity of 64.3%, specificity 100%, PPV of 100%, and NPV of 58.3%.Conclusions
The NS1 ELISA performed as expected in known DENV qRT-PCR+ samples; however negative NS1 results for qRT-PCR+ and IgG+ sera seemingly reduced the usefulness of the NS1 ELISA for nonprimary cases. We therefore conclude that diagnosis obtained via DENV NS1 ELISA deserves further investigation.
SUBMITTER: Ambrose JH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5504952 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Early diagnosis of dengue can assist patient triage and management and prevent unnecessary treatments and interventions. Commercially available assays that detect the dengue virus protein NS1 in the plasma/serum of patients offers the possibility of early and rapid diagnosis.The sensitivity and specificity of the Pan-E Dengue Early ELISA and the Platelia Dengue NS1 Ag assays were compared against a reference diagnosis in 1385 patients in 6 countries in Asia and the Americas. Platelia was more sensitive (66%) than Pan-E (52%) in confirmed dengue cases. Sensitivity varied by geographic region, with both assays generally being more sensitive in patients from SE Asia than the Americas. Both kits were more sensitive for specimens collected within the first few days of illness onset relative to later time points. Pan-E and Platelia were both 100% specific in febrile patients without evidence of acute dengue. In patients with other confirmed diagnoses and healthy blood donors, Platelia was more specific (100%) than Pan-E (90%). For Platelia, when either the NS1 test or the IgM test on the acute sample was positive, the sensitivity versus the reference result was 82% in samples collected in the first four days of fever. NS1 sensitivity was not associated to disease severity (DF or DHF) in the Platelia test, whereas a trend for higher sensitivity in DHF cases was seen in the Pan-E test (however combined with lower overall sensitivity).Collectively, this multi-country study suggests that the best performing NS1 assay (Platelia) had moderate sensitivity (median 64%, range 34-76%) and high specificity (100%) for the diagnosis of dengue. The poor sensitivity of the evaluated assays in some geographical regions suggests further assessments are needed. The combination of NS1 and IgM detection in samples collected in the first few days of fever increased the overall dengue diagnostic sensitivity.
| S-EPMC2930874 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), continues to spread globally. Although several rapid commercial serological assays have been developed, little is known about their performance and accuracy in detecting SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in COVID-19 patient samples. Here, we have evaluated the performance of seven commercially available rapid lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) obtained from different manufacturers, and compared them to in-house developed and validated ELISA assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG antibodies in RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients. While all evaluated LFIA assays showed high specificity, our data showed a significant variation in sensitivity of these assays, which ranged from 0% to 54% for samples collected early during infection (3-7 days post symptoms onset) and from 54% to 88% for samples collected at later time points during infection (8-27 days post symptoms onset). Therefore, we recommend prior evaluation and validation of these assays before being routinely used to detect IgM and IgG in COVID-19 patients. Moreover, our findings suggest the use of LFIA assays in combination with other standard methods, and not as an alternative.
| S-EPMC7767212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Dengue is associated with explosive urban epidemics and has become a major public health problem in many tropical developing countries, including Brazil. The laboratory diagnosis of dengue can be carried out using several approaches, however sensitive and specific assays useful to diagnose in the early stage of fever are desirable. The flavivirus non-structural protein NS1, a highly conserved and secreted glycoprotein, is a candidate protein for rapid diagnosis of dengue in endemic countries. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We aimed to evaluate the potential use of 3 commercial kits in a panel of 450 serum samples for early diagnosis of dengue in Brazil. The PanBio Early ELISA (PanBio Diagnostics) showed a sensitivity of 72.3% (159/220) and a specificity of 100%, while the sensitivity of the Platelia NS1 assay (Biorad Laboratories) was 83.6% (184/220). However, the highest sensitivity (89.6%; 197/220) was obtained by using the NS1 Ag Strip (Biorad Laboratories). A lower sensitivity was observed in DENV-3 cases by all 3 kits. Serum positive by virus isolation were more often positive than cases positive by RT-PCR by all three assays and a higher detection rate was observed during the first four days after the onset of the symptoms. The presence or absence of IgM showed no influence in the confirmation by the pan-E Early ELISA (P = 0,6159). However, a higher confirmation by both Platelia NS1 (Biorad) and Dengue NS1 Ag Strip (Biorad) in the absence of IgM was statistically significant (P<0,0001 and P = 0,0008, respectively). Only the Platelia NS1 test showed a higher sensitivity in confirming primary infections than secondary ones. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The results indicate that commercial kits of dengue NS1 antigen are useful for the laboratory diagnosis of acute primary and secondary dengue. It can be used in combination with the MAC-ELISA for case detection and as screening test to complement viral isolation.
| S-EPMC2897844 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Timely and accurate dengue diagnosis is important for differential diagnosis and immediate implementation of appropriate disease control measures. In this study, we compared the usefulness and applicability of NS1 RDT (NS1 Ag Strip) and qRT-PCR tests in complementing the IgM ELISA for dengue diagnosis on single serum specimen (n?=?375). The NS1 Ag Strip and qRT-PCR showed a fair concordance (??=?0.207, p?=?0.001). While the NS1 Ag Strip showed higher positivity than qRT-PCR for acute (97.8% vs. 84.8%) and post-acute samples (94.8% vs. 71.8%) of primary infection, qRT-PCR showed higher positivity for acute (58.1% vs. 48.4%) and post-acute (50.0% vs.41.4%) samples in secondary infection. IgM ELISA showed higher positivity in samples from secondary dengue (74.2-94.8%) than in those from primary dengue (21.7-64.1%). More primary dengue samples showed positive with combined NS1 Ag Strip/IgM ELISA (99.0% vs. 92.8%) whereas more secondary samples showed positive with combined qRT-PCR/IgM ELISA (99.4% vs. 96.2%). Combined NS1 Ag Strip/IgM ELISA is a suitable combination tests for timely and accurate dengue diagnosis on single serum specimen. If complemented with qRT-PCR, combined NS1 Ag Strip/IgM ELISA would improve detection of secondary dengue samples.
| S-EPMC4899743 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although automated external defibrillators (AEDs) have contributed to a better survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, there have been reports of their malfunctioning. We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of commercially available AEDs using surface ECGs of ventricular fibrillation (VF), ventricular tachycardia (VT), and supraventricular tachycardia (SVT).ECGs(VF 31, VT 48, SVT 97) were stored during electrophysiological studies and transmitted to 4 AEDs, the LifePak CR Plus (CR Plus), HeartStart FR3 (FR3), and CardioLife AED-2150 (CL2150) and -9231 (CL9231), through the pad electrode cables. For VF, the CL2150 and CL9231 advised shocks in all cases, and the CR Plus and FR3 advised shocks in all but one VF case. For VTs faster than 180 bpm, the ratios for advising shocks were 79%, 36%, 89%, and 96% for the CR Plus, FR3, CL2150, and CL9231, respectively. The FR3 and CR Plus did not advise shocks for narrow QRS SVTs, whereas the CL9231 tended to treat high-rate tachycardias faster than 180 bpm even with narrow QRS complexes. The characteristics of the shock advice for the FR3 differed from that for the CL9231 (kappa coefficient [κ]=0.479, P<0.001), and the CR Plus and CL2150 had characteristics somewhere between the 2 former AEDs (κ=0.818, P<0.001).Commercially available AEDs diagnosed VF almost always correctly. For VT and SVT diagnoses, a discrepancy was evident among the 4 investigated AEDs. The differences in the arrhythmia diagnosis algorithms for differentiating SVT from VT were thought to account for these differences.
| S-EPMC4845298 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesTo validate the diagnostic accuracy of a Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA immunoassay for COVID-19.MethodsIn this unmatched (1:2) case-control validation study, we used sera of 181 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and 326 controls collected before SARS-CoV-2 emergence. Diagnostic accuracy of the immunoassay was assessed against a whole spike protein-based recombinant immunofluorescence assay (rIFA) by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Discrepant cases between ELISA and rIFA were further tested by pseudo-neutralization assay.ResultsCOVID-19 patients were more likely to be male and older than controls, and 50.3% were hospitalized. ROC curve analyses indicated that IgG and IgA had high diagnostic accuracies with AUCs of 0.990 (95% Confidence Interval [95%CI]: 0.983-0.996) and 0.978 (95%CI: 0.967-0.989), respectively. IgG assays outperformed IgA assays (p=0.01). Taking an assessed 15% inter-assay imprecision into account, an optimized IgG ratio cut-off > 2.5 displayed a 100% specificity (95%CI: 99-100) and a 100% positive predictive value (95%CI: 96-100). A 0.8 cut-off displayed a 94% sensitivity (95%CI: 88-97) and a 97% negative predictive value (95%CI: 95-99). Substituting the upper threshold for the manufacturer's, improved assay performance, leaving 8.9% of IgG ratios indeterminate between 0.8-2.5.ConclusionsThe Euroimmun assay displays a nearly optimal diagnostic accuracy using IgG against SARS-CoV-2 in patient samples, with no obvious gains from IgA serology. The optimized cut-offs are fit for rule-in and rule-out purposes, allowing determination of whether individuals in our study population have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or not. IgG serology should however not be considered as a surrogate of protection at this stage.
| S-EPMC7320699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Commercially available diagnostic test kits for detection of dengue virus (DENV) non-structural protein 1 (NS1) and anti-DENV IgM were evaluated for their sensitivity and specificity and other performance characteristics by a diagnostic laboratory network developed by World Health Organization (WHO), the UNICEF/UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) and the Pediatric Dengue Vaccine Initiative (PDVI). Each network laboratory contributed characterized serum specimens for the panels used in the evaluation. Microplate enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and rapid diagnostic test (RDT formats) were represented by the kits. Each ELISA was evaluated by 2 laboratories and RDTs were evaluated by at least 3 laboratories. The reference tests for IgM anti-DENV were laboratory developed assays produced by the Armed Forces Research Institute for Medical Science (AFRIMS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the NS1 reference test was reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Results were analyzed to determine sensitivity, specificity, inter-laboratory and inter-reader agreement, lot-to-lot variation and ease-of-use. NS1 ELISA sensitivity was 60-75% and specificity 71-80%; NS1 RDT sensitivity was 38-71% and specificity 76-80%; the IgM anti-DENV RDTs sensitivity was 30-96%, with a specificity of 86-92%, and IgM anti-DENV ELISA sensitivity was 96-98% and specificity 78-91%. NS1 tests were generally more sensitive in specimens from the acute phase of dengue and in primary DENV infection, whereas IgM anti-DENV tests were less sensitive in secondary DENV infections. The reproducibility of the NS1 RDTs ranged from 92-99% and the IgM anti-DENV RDTs from 88-94%.
| S-EPMC4199549 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Serological diagnostic of the severe respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a valuable tool for the determination of immunity and surveillance of exposure to the virus. In the context of an ongoing pandemic, it is essential to externally validate widely used tests to assure correct diagnostics and epidemiological estimations. We evaluated the performance of the COVID-19 ELISA IgG and the COVID-19 ELISA IgM/A (Vircell, S.L.) against a highly specific and sensitive in-house Luminex immunoassay in a set of samples from pregnant women and cord blood. The agreement between both assays was moderate to high for IgG but low for IgM/A. Considering seropositivity by either IgG and/or IgM/A, the technical performance of the ELISA was highly imbalanced, with 96% sensitivity at the expense of 22% specificity. As for the clinical performance, the negative predictive value reached 87% while the positive predictive value was 51%. Our results stress the need for highly specific and sensitive assays and external validation of diagnostic tests with different sets of samples to avoid the clinical, epidemiological and personal disturbances derived from serological misdiagnosis.
| S-EPMC8460676 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Timely and accurate laboratory testing is essential for managing the global COVID-19 pandemic. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction remains the gold-standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, but several practical issues limit the test's use. Immunoassays have been indicated as an alternative for individual and mass testing.ObjectivesTo access the performance of 12 serological tests for COVID-19 diagnosis.MethodsWe conducted a blind evaluation of six lateral-flow immunoassays (LFIAs) and six enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) commercially available in Brazil for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.ResultsConsidering patients with seven or more days of symptoms, the sensitivity ranged from 59.5% to 83.1% for LFIAs and from 50.7% to 92.6% for ELISAs. For both methods, the sensitivity increased with clinical severity and days of symptoms. The agreement among LFIAs performed with digital blood and serum was moderate. Specificity was, in general, higher for LFIAs than for ELISAs. Infectious diseases prevalent in the tropics, such as HIV, leishmaniasis, arboviruses, and malaria, represent conditions with the potential to cause false-positive results with these tests, which significantly compromises their specificity.ConclusionThe performance of immunoassays was only moderate, affected by the duration and clinical severity of the disease. Absence of discriminatory power between IgM/IgA and IgG has also been demonstrated, which prevents the use of acute-phase antibodies for decisions on social isolation.
| S-EPMC7544564 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Numerous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapid serological tests have been developed, but their accuracy has usually been assessed using very few samples, and rigorous comparisons between these tests are scarce. In this study, we evaluated and compared 10 commercially available SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests using the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) methodology. Two hundred fifty serum samples from 159 PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (collected 0 to 32 days after the onset of symptoms) were tested with rapid serological tests. Control serum samples (n = 254) were retrieved from pre-coronavirus disease (COVID) periods from patients with other coronavirus infections (n = 11), positivity for rheumatoid factors (n = 3), IgG/IgM hyperglobulinemia (n = 9), malaria (n = 5), or no documented viral infection (n = 226). All samples were tested using rapid lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) from 10 manufacturers. Only four tests achieved ≥98% specificity, with the specificities ranging from 75.7% to 99.2%. The sensitivities varied by the day of sample collection after the onset of symptoms, from 31.7% to 55.4% (days 0 to 9), 65.9% to 92.9% (days 10 to 14), and 81.0% to 95.2% (>14 days). Only three of the tests evaluated met French health authorities' thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 serological tests (≥90% sensitivity and ≥98% specificity). Overall, the performances varied greatly between tests, with only one-third meeting acceptable specificity and sensitivity thresholds. Knowledge of the analytical performances of these tests will allow clinicians and, most importantly, laboratorians to use them with more confidence; could help determine the general population's immunological status; and may help diagnose some patients with false-negative real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) results.
| S-EPMC8111137 | biostudies-literature