신종 인플루엔자 A 유행 시 발열 시작과 신속 항원 검사 시행 사이의 시간 간격에 따른 민감도
The Sensitivity according to the Time Gap between Fever Onset and the Performance of Rapid Antigen Test for 2009 H1N1 Influenza
1
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
목 적:인플루엔자 신속 항원 검사(rapid antigen test, RAT)는 인플루엔자를 빠르게 선별하는 검사로 많이 사용되고 있다. 저자들은 신종 인플루엔자 A 유행 시 소아에서 RAT의 민감도와 발열 시작과 RAT 시행 사이의 시간 간격에 따른 민감도의 차이를 알아보았다. 방 법:2009 H1N1 인플루엔자 유행시기인 2009년 10월에서 2010년 2월까지 신종 인플루엔자 A 감염으로 입원한 환아를 대상으로 하였다. RAT는 비인두 면봉 검체(nasopharyngeal swab)를 이용하여 SD 바이오라인 인플루엔자 항원(Standard diagnostics Inc., Yongin, Korea)으로 시행하였다. 신종 인플루엔자 A는 RAT와 같은 시기에 시행한 동일한 검체를 이용하여 실시간 역전사 종합효소연쇄반응 검사 real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction)로 확진하였다. 검체는 발열 시작과 RAT 시행 시기의 시간 간격에 따라 6개의 그룹으로 분류하였다. 시간 간격이 24시간 이내인 경우 TG1, 24-48시간인 경우 TG2, 48-72시간인 경우 TG3, 72-96시간인 경우 TG4, 96-120시간인 경우 TG5, 120시간 이후인 경우 TG6로 분류하였다. 각각의 그룹에서 RAT의 민감도를 계산하여 시간 간격에 따른 차이를 비교하였다. 결 과:채취한 모든 검체에 대한 RAT의 민감도는 69.9 %였다. 시간 간격에 따른 RAT의 민감도는 TG1 64.3%, TG2 73.3%, TG3 61.1%, TG4 88.9%, TG5 83.3%, 그리고 TG6 61.1%였으며 통계학적으로 차이가 없었다. 결 론:본 연구에서 신종 인플루엔자 A 유행 시 발열 시작과 RAT 시행까지의 시간 간격에 따른 RAT 민감도가 통계학적으로는 의미가 없었으나, RAT를 발열 시작 후 72-96시간에 시행하였을 경우 민감도가 가장 높았다. 소아에서 언제 RAT를 시행할 경우 민감도를 높일 수 있을지에 대한 추가적인 연구가 필요할 것이다.
Abstract
Purpose:Rapid antigen test (RAT) is used to screen influenza rapidly. The clinical sensitivity of RAT was poor for 2009 H1N1 influenza. The aim of this study was to identify the correlation of time gap (TG) between fever onset and the sensitivity of RAT for 2009 H1N1 influenza. Methods:Data were collected retrospectively during the pandemic H1N1 2009 influenza season between October 2009 and February 2010. The RAT was done by using SD Bioline influenza antigen (Standard Diagnostics Inc.) in nasopharyngeal swab. The 2009 H1N1 influenza was confirmed by real- time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR). Specimens were categorized according to the TG between fever onset and performance of RAT. They were classified into <24 hours (TG1), 24 to 48 hours (TG2), 48 to 72 hours (TG3), 72 to 96 hours (TG4), 96 to 120 hours (TG5), ˃120 hours (TG6). Results:The overall sensitivity of RAT was 69.9%. The TG dependent sensitivity of RAT at TG1, TG2, TG3, TG4, TG5, and TG6 was 64.3%, 73.3%, 61.1%, 88.9%, 83.3%, and 61.1% respectively. The sensitivity of RAT was the highest when the TG was 72 to 96 hours. But this result was not statistically significant. Conclusion:Correlation of TG between fever onset and the sensitivity of RAT for 2009 H1N1 influenza was not statistically significant. But our study suggested that 72 to 96 hours after fever onset is the most sensitive time of RAT. Timely optimal performance of the RAT could have a significant impact on improving results. Further evaluation for better sensitivity would be needed.
참고문헌 (31)
- Dawood FS, "Emergence of a novel swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus in humans", N Engl J Med, 360, pp.2605~2615 (2009)
- "First confirmed case of influenza A (H1N1) in Republic of Korea" (2010)[URL]
- "Republic of Korea raises alert level as Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 spreads" (2010)[URL]
- "World now at the start of 2009 influenza pandemic" (2010)[URL]
- "Influenza weekly report" (2010)[URL]
- "WHO information for laboratory diagnosis of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus in humans-revised" (2010)[URL]
- Pabbaraju K, "Design and validation of real-time reverse transcription-PCR assays for detection of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus", J Clin Microbiol, 47, pp.3454~3460 (2009)
- Mai LQ, "Evaluation of two lateral-flow chromatographic membrane immunoassays for rapid detection of influenza virus in limited respiratory specimens", J Lab Med Qual Assur, 27, pp.243~249 (2005)
- 최태윤, "비인두 면봉 검체와 비인두 흡인 검체로 시행한 SD BIOLINE Influenza Antigen 키트의 비교 평가", Annals of Clinical Microbiology, 13(4), pp.147~150 (2010), 대한임상미생물학회
- Hurt AC, "Performance of six influenza rapid tests in detecting human influenza in clinical specimens", J Clin Virol, 39, pp.132~135 (2007)
- van Elden LJ, "Clinical diagnosis of influenza virus infection: evaluation of diagnostic tools in general practice", Br J Gen Pract, 51, pp.630~634 (2001)
- Kok J, "Comparison of a rapid antigen test with nucleic acid testing during cocirculation of pandemic influenza A", H1N1 2009 and seasonal influenza A, J Clin Microbiol, pp.2010, 48[DOI]
- Druce J, "Laboratory diagnosis and surveillance of human respiratory viruses by PCR in Victoria, Australia, 2002-2003", J Med Virol, 75, pp.122~129 (2005)
- Blyth CC, "Rapid-test sensitivity for novel swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus in humans", N Engl J Med, 361, pp.2493~ (2009)
- Cheng CK, "Factors affecting QuickVue Influenza A+B rapid test performance in the community setting", Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis, 65, pp.35~41 (2009)
- Drexler JF, "Poor clinical sensitivity of rapid antigen test for influenza A pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus", Emerg Infect Dis, 15, pp.1662~1664 (2009)
- Louie JK, "Rapid influenza antigen test for diagnosis of pandemic (H1N1) 2009", Emerg Infect Dis, 16, pp.824~826 (2010)
- Sambol AR, "Use of rapid influenza diagnostic tests under field conditions as a screening tool during an outbreak of the 2009 novel influenza virus: practical considerations", J Clin Virol, 47, pp.229~233 (2010)
- Vasoo S, "Rapid antigen tests for diagnosis of pandemic (Swine) influenza A", H1N1, 2009, pp.49, 1090~1093
- Velasco JM, "Evaluation of QuickVue influenza A+B rapid test for detection of pandemic influenza A", H1N1 2009, 2010, pp.48, 120~122
- Watcharananan S, "Rapid influenza diagnostic test during the outbreak of the novel influenza A", H1N1 2009 in Thailand: an experience with better test performance in resource limited setting, 2010, pp.60, 86~87
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "Evaluation of rapid influenza diagnostic tests for detection of novel influenza A (H1N1) virus-United States, 2009", MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 58, pp.826~829 (2009)
- Ginocchio CC, "Evaluation of multiple test methods for the detection of the novel 2009 influenza A (H1N1) during the New York City outbreak", J Clin Virol, 45, pp.191~195 (2009)
- Rodriguez WJ, "Evaluation of diagnostic tests for influenza in a pediatric practice", Pediatr Infect Dis J, 21, pp.193~196 (2002)
- Agoritsas K, "Evaluation of the Quidel QuickVue test for detection of influenza A and B viruses in the pediatric emergency medicine setting by use of three specimen collection methods", J Clin Microbiol, 44, pp.2638~2641 (2006)
- Biggs C, "Performance of influenza rapid antigen testing in influenza in emergency department patients", Emerg Med J, 27, pp.5~7 (2010)
- Chan KH, "Comparison of nasopharyngeal flocked swabs and aspirates for rapid diagnosis of respiratory viruses in children", J Clin Virol, 42, pp.65~69 (2008)
- Stevenson HL, "Poor positive accuracy of QuickVue rapid antigen tests during the influenza A (H1N1) 2009 pandemic", J Clin Microbiol, 48, pp.3729~3731 (2010)
- Kim HJ, "Evaluation of New Rapid Antigen Test for Detection of Pandemic Influenza A", H1N1 2009 Virus, 2010, pp.48(6), 2260~2262[DOI]
- Cheng PK, "Performance of laboratory diagnostics for the detection of influenza A (H1N1) virus as correlated with the time after symptom onset and viral load", J Clin Virol, 47, pp.182~185 (2010)
- Lee CS, "Time-dependent sensitivity of a rapid antigen test in patients with 2009 H1N1 influenza", J Clin Microbiol, 49, pp.1702~ (2011)
