English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Although infections with the novel pandemic 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus (A/H1N1/2009) appeared to be relatively mild during the first summer of circulation ('off season'), there has been significant morbidity and hospitalization and several fatal cases. Thus, rapid detection of A/H1N1/2009 is crucial for efficient treatment and infection control measures. In contrast to seasonal influenza, where point-of-care (POC) rapid antigen tests and direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) staining ensure rapid detection, diagnosis of A/H1N1/2009 has so far been based on RT-PCR. This study retrospectively compared the performance of the Quidel QuickVue POC test, DFA staining and virus isolation with that of RT-PCR for A/H1N1/2009 detection in 526 respiratory specimens collected during the first wave of the outbreak from May to September 2009. A/H1N1/2009 was detected in 9.1% (48/526) of samples. One hundred and thirty-seven of the A/H1N1/2009 PCR-negative samples were additionally tested using a RealAccurate Respiratory RT-PCR panel, revealing other respiratory viruses (mainly entero/rhino- and adenoviruses) in 42.3% (58/137). All methods analysed detected A/H1N1/2009 with excellent specificity but different sensitivities (POC test: 18.2%; DFA staining: 38.7%; virus isolation: 45.7%). Therefore, the POC test was not suitable for diagnosis, detecting A/H1N1/2009 only if present in high concentrations (corresponding median Ct value=19.0; range=16.5-21.4). DFA staining was also able to detect A/H1N1/2009 in specimens with a lower virus concentration (median Ct value=24.0; range=16.5-29.8). Virus isolation, which was positive after a median time of 7.5 days, was too time-consuming. In summary, DFA staining is superior to POC testing and may be appropriate for patients expected to have a rather high level of virus replication. Nevertheless, in DFA-negative specimens, A/H1N1/2009 should be excluded by RT-PCR.

journal of medical microbiology/journal of medical microbiology

Comparison of the performance of direct fluorescent antibody staining, a point-of-care rapid antigen test and virus isolation with that of RT-PCR for the detection of novel 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus in respiratory specimens