Retrospective analysis on confirmation rates for referred positive rotavirus samples in England, 2016 to 2017: implications for diagnosis and surveillance

Cristina C. Celma; Stuart Beard; Amy Douglas; Shan Wong; Nana Kwame Osafo; Matthew Hannah; Ashleigh Hale; Gabrielle Huggins; Shamez Ladhani; William Dunning

doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.43.1900210

Retrospective analysis on confirmation rates for referred positive rotavirus samples in England, 2016 to 2017: implications for diagnosis and surveillance

Cristina C. Celma, Stuart Beard, Amy Douglas, Shan Wong, Nana Kwame Osafo, Matthew Hannah, Ashleigh Hale, Gabrielle Huggins, Shamez Ladhani, William Dunning^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Rapid diagnostic tests are commonly used by hospital laboratories in England to detect rotavirus (RV), and results are used to inform clinical management and support national surveillance of the infant rotavirus immunisation programme since 2013. In 2017, the Public Health England (PHE) national reference laboratory for enteric viruses observed that the presence of RV could not be confirmed by PCR in a proportion of RV-positive samples referred for confirmatory detection. Aim: We aimed to compare the positivity rate of detection methods used by hospital laboratories with the PHE confirmatory test rate. Methods: Rotavirus specimens testing positive at local hospital laboratories were re-tested at the PHE national reference laboratory using a PCR test. Confirmatory results were compared to original results from the PHE laboratory information management system. Results: Hospital laboratories screened 70.1% (2,608/3,721) of RV samples using immunochromatographic assay (IC) or rapid tests, 15.5% (578/3,721) using enzyme immunoassays (EIA) and 14.4% (535/3,721) using PCR. Overall, 1,011/3,721 (27.2%) locally RV-positive samples referred to PHE in 2016 and 2017 failed RV detection using the PHE reference laboratory PCR test. Confirmation rates were 66.9% (1,746/2,608) for the IC tests, 87.4% (505/578) for the EIA and 86.4% (465/535) for the PCR assays. Seasonal confirmation rate discrepancies were also evident for IC tests. Conclusions: This report highlights high false positive rates with the most commonly used RV screening tests and emphasises the importance of implementing verified confirmatory tests for RV detections. This has implications for clinical diagnosis and national surveillance.

Original language	English
Journal	Eurosurveillance
Volume	25
Issue number	43
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.43.1900210
Publication status	Published - Oct 2020

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The authors would like to thank Professor Polly Roy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, for providing ssRNA segment S6 RRV strain used to determine the limit of detection for the confirmatory PHE reference laboratory confirmatory PCR assay, and Natalie Adams (formerly of Public Health England) for her assistance regarding rotavirus reporting system.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). All rights reserved.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.43.1900210

Cite this

@article{8d0f6c5de878402ea02da8fca948fe01,

title = "Retrospective analysis on confirmation rates for referred positive rotavirus samples in England, 2016 to 2017: implications for diagnosis and surveillance",

abstract = "Background: Rapid diagnostic tests are commonly used by hospital laboratories in England to detect rotavirus (RV), and results are used to inform clinical management and support national surveillance of the infant rotavirus immunisation programme since 2013. In 2017, the Public Health England (PHE) national reference laboratory for enteric viruses observed that the presence of RV could not be confirmed by PCR in a proportion of RV-positive samples referred for confirmatory detection. Aim: We aimed to compare the positivity rate of detection methods used by hospital laboratories with the PHE confirmatory test rate. Methods: Rotavirus specimens testing positive at local hospital laboratories were re-tested at the PHE national reference laboratory using a PCR test. Confirmatory results were compared to original results from the PHE laboratory information management system. Results: Hospital laboratories screened 70.1% (2,608/3,721) of RV samples using immunochromatographic assay (IC) or rapid tests, 15.5% (578/3,721) using enzyme immunoassays (EIA) and 14.4% (535/3,721) using PCR. Overall, 1,011/3,721 (27.2%) locally RV-positive samples referred to PHE in 2016 and 2017 failed RV detection using the PHE reference laboratory PCR test. Confirmation rates were 66.9% (1,746/2,608) for the IC tests, 87.4% (505/578) for the EIA and 86.4% (465/535) for the PCR assays. Seasonal confirmation rate discrepancies were also evident for IC tests. Conclusions: This report highlights high false positive rates with the most commonly used RV screening tests and emphasises the importance of implementing verified confirmatory tests for RV detections. This has implications for clinical diagnosis and national surveillance.",

author = "Celma, {Cristina C.} and Stuart Beard and Amy Douglas and Shan Wong and Osafo, {Nana Kwame} and Matthew Hannah and Ashleigh Hale and Gabrielle Huggins and Shamez Ladhani and William Dunning",

note = "Funding Information: The authors would like to thank Professor Polly Roy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, for providing ssRNA segment S6 RRV strain used to determine the limit of detection for the confirmatory PHE reference laboratory confirmatory PCR assay, and Natalie Adams (formerly of Public Health England) for her assistance regarding rotavirus reporting system. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). All rights reserved.",

year = "2020",

month = oct,

doi = "10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.43.1900210",

language = "English",

volume = "25",

journal = "Eurosurveillance",

issn = "1025-496X",

publisher = "European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)",

number = "43",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Retrospective analysis on confirmation rates for referred positive rotavirus samples in England, 2016 to 2017

T2 - implications for diagnosis and surveillance

AU - Celma, Cristina C.

AU - Beard, Stuart

AU - Douglas, Amy

AU - Wong, Shan

AU - Osafo, Nana Kwame

AU - Hannah, Matthew

AU - Hale, Ashleigh

AU - Huggins, Gabrielle

AU - Ladhani, Shamez

AU - Dunning, William

N1 - Funding Information: The authors would like to thank Professor Polly Roy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, for providing ssRNA segment S6 RRV strain used to determine the limit of detection for the confirmatory PHE reference laboratory confirmatory PCR assay, and Natalie Adams (formerly of Public Health England) for her assistance regarding rotavirus reporting system. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). All rights reserved.

PY - 2020/10

Y1 - 2020/10

N2 - Background: Rapid diagnostic tests are commonly used by hospital laboratories in England to detect rotavirus (RV), and results are used to inform clinical management and support national surveillance of the infant rotavirus immunisation programme since 2013. In 2017, the Public Health England (PHE) national reference laboratory for enteric viruses observed that the presence of RV could not be confirmed by PCR in a proportion of RV-positive samples referred for confirmatory detection. Aim: We aimed to compare the positivity rate of detection methods used by hospital laboratories with the PHE confirmatory test rate. Methods: Rotavirus specimens testing positive at local hospital laboratories were re-tested at the PHE national reference laboratory using a PCR test. Confirmatory results were compared to original results from the PHE laboratory information management system. Results: Hospital laboratories screened 70.1% (2,608/3,721) of RV samples using immunochromatographic assay (IC) or rapid tests, 15.5% (578/3,721) using enzyme immunoassays (EIA) and 14.4% (535/3,721) using PCR. Overall, 1,011/3,721 (27.2%) locally RV-positive samples referred to PHE in 2016 and 2017 failed RV detection using the PHE reference laboratory PCR test. Confirmation rates were 66.9% (1,746/2,608) for the IC tests, 87.4% (505/578) for the EIA and 86.4% (465/535) for the PCR assays. Seasonal confirmation rate discrepancies were also evident for IC tests. Conclusions: This report highlights high false positive rates with the most commonly used RV screening tests and emphasises the importance of implementing verified confirmatory tests for RV detections. This has implications for clinical diagnosis and national surveillance.

AB - Background: Rapid diagnostic tests are commonly used by hospital laboratories in England to detect rotavirus (RV), and results are used to inform clinical management and support national surveillance of the infant rotavirus immunisation programme since 2013. In 2017, the Public Health England (PHE) national reference laboratory for enteric viruses observed that the presence of RV could not be confirmed by PCR in a proportion of RV-positive samples referred for confirmatory detection. Aim: We aimed to compare the positivity rate of detection methods used by hospital laboratories with the PHE confirmatory test rate. Methods: Rotavirus specimens testing positive at local hospital laboratories were re-tested at the PHE national reference laboratory using a PCR test. Confirmatory results were compared to original results from the PHE laboratory information management system. Results: Hospital laboratories screened 70.1% (2,608/3,721) of RV samples using immunochromatographic assay (IC) or rapid tests, 15.5% (578/3,721) using enzyme immunoassays (EIA) and 14.4% (535/3,721) using PCR. Overall, 1,011/3,721 (27.2%) locally RV-positive samples referred to PHE in 2016 and 2017 failed RV detection using the PHE reference laboratory PCR test. Confirmation rates were 66.9% (1,746/2,608) for the IC tests, 87.4% (505/578) for the EIA and 86.4% (465/535) for the PCR assays. Seasonal confirmation rate discrepancies were also evident for IC tests. Conclusions: This report highlights high false positive rates with the most commonly used RV screening tests and emphasises the importance of implementing verified confirmatory tests for RV detections. This has implications for clinical diagnosis and national surveillance.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85095400590&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.43.1900210

DO - 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.43.1900210

M3 - Article

C2 - 33124554

AN - SCOPUS:85095400590

SN - 1025-496X

VL - 25

JO - Eurosurveillance

JF - Eurosurveillance

IS - 43

ER -

Retrospective analysis on confirmation rates for referred positive rotavirus samples in England, 2016 to 2017: implications for diagnosis and surveillance

Abstract

Bibliographical note

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this