Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, June 2007, p. 799-801, Vol. 14, No. 6
1071-412X/07/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/CVI.00483-06
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Division of Infectious Diseases, Tropical Medicine and AIDS, Academic Medical Center F4-217, P.O. Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, The Netherlands,1 Department of Virology, Cho Ray Hospital, 201 B Nguyen Chi Thanh, District 5, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam,2 Department of Tropical Diseases, Cho Ray Hospital, 201 B Nguyen Chi Thanh, District 5, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam,3 Department of Microbiology, Cho Ray Hospital, 201 B Nguyen Chi Thanh, District 5, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam,4 Binh Thuan Provincial Malaria Center, 133 A Hai Thuong Lan Ong, Phan Thiet City, Vietnam5
Received 27 December 2006/ Returned for modification 5 February 2007/ Accepted 12 April 2007
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
The study site has been described elsewhere (5, 6). Patients with acute fever without signs of severe systemic or organ-specific disease were included. Two blood samples were collected by venous puncture on presentation (at time 0 [t0]) and after 3 weeks (t3 weeks); sera were stored in a freezer at –70°C until analysis. Paired serum samples were tested with a commercially available IgM capture and an IgG ELISA (Focus Diagnostics Inc., Cypress, CA) (4). Details regarding both the IgM capture ELISA and the IgG ELISA and the interpretation of the results have been described previously (4, 10). Two rapid tests were evaluated: the PanBio Dengue Duo Cassette (PanBio Ltd., Queensland, Australia) and the SD Bioline Dengue IgG/IgM strip test (Standard Diagnostics Inc., Kyonggi-do, Korea). The rapid tests were read according to the manufacturers' instructions by two independent investigators. Results were read as positive and negative. Indeterminate results were recorded as such. Acute primary dengue infection was definedas an IgM-positive and IgG-negative result; acute secondary dengue infection was defined as an IgM-positive and IgG-positive or IgM-negative and IgG-positive result.
The overall agreement, sensitivities, specificities, and predictive values and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were determined using SPSS for Windows (version 12.2; SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). Agreement was assessed by calculating the kappa value.
Serum samples from 200 febrile patients were tested, of whom 162 had dengue antibodies. Based on the Focus ELISA results, 51 patients were classified as having acute primary dengue infection, 44 as having acute secondary dengue infection, and 67 as having had past dengue infections. In 38 patients, no dengue antibodies were demonstrated.
The results of the rapid tests, applied to the t3-week sera, were read as positive or negative and compared to the results of the ELISA. The IgG test was always very clear. Five PanBio IgM and three SD IgM test samples showed a very faint band, even after a second reading 15 minutes later. In the following analysis, these were classified as negative.
With the PanBio test, 78 samples were positive for IgM and 100 for IgG. With the SD tests, 12 samples were positive for IgM and 138 for IgG. Sensitivity and specificities, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values using the Focus ELISA as the gold standard are presented in Table 1. The results of the PanBio test were regarded as the best, and therefore, this assay was also applied to the t0 sample. Figure 1 shows the relationship between the PanBio cassette test and the optical density (OD) values of the Focus ELISA. Especially for IgM, there is no clear distinction between positive and negative results.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. Two rapid test results compared to ELISA of dengue in sera from Vietnamese febrile patientsa
|
![]() View larger version (11K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. The Focus Dengue ELISA OD values for acute-phase serum samples tested with the PanBio Dengue Duo Cassette test.
|
2, 160; P < 0.001). The rapid test, applied to the t0 sample, had difficulties in discriminating acute from past disease and acute primary from acute secondary dengue infection. |
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 2. Diagnostic classification of dengue with the PanBio Dengue Duo Cassette test on acute-phase serum of Vietnamese febrile patients, compared to ELISA on paired serum samplesa
|
The manufacturers have succeeded in making tests that are easy to handle, but the sensitivity of both assays is poor. The high cutoff levels that both manufacturers apply are necessary to increase the specificity in areas where dengue is endemic, but this is done at the expense of the sensitivities of both tests. The poor sensitivities of both rapid tests, especially that of the SD IgM test (
11%), compares to results of a recent study of a series of rapid tests that included the previous generation PanBio test, a strip test, and the SD test (1).
The Focus ELISA is a rather sensitive assay, and the algorithm that was used for diagnostic classification in this study was also sensitive, with small increases of antibody concentrations leading to a diagnosis of acute dengue infection. However, the lack of sensitivity of the rapid assays for detecting antibodies in this study was at the basis of the diagnostic misclassification.
Although the PanBio cassette test performs somewhat better than its paper strip predecessor and much better than the SD strip test, the results of this study again confirm that rapid tests that are based on antibody detection still have a limited value for diagnosing dengue infection in its acute stage. Rapid tests for the detection of dengue NS1 antigen are being developed and are a promising alternative for tests that are based on antibody detection (3, 12).
In conclusion, the PanBio cassette and SD strip tests for dengue infection are easy to use with clear results. They show a high specificity with poor sensitivity, especially with respect to the detection of IgM. The PanBio cassette test performed better than the SD test but, applied to the acute-phase serum sample, also did not discriminate clearly between infection at the acute primary or secondary dengue or past dengue phase.
Published ahead of print on 25 April 2007. ![]()
|
|
|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»