Laboratory diagnosis and surveillance of human respiratory viruses by PCR in Victoria, Australia, 2002–2003

Abstract

Respiratory viruses were identified by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in more than 4,200 specimens collected during 2002 and 2003 in Victoria, Australia from patients admitted to hospitals or participating in an influenza surveillance program. Influenza viruses and picornaviruses were important causes of morbidity in both years. Additional testing of picornavirus-positive samples suggested that rhinoviruses but not enteroviruses were more likely to be associated with respiratory symptoms, irrespective of the season in which they circulated. Detection of influenza viruses was strongly associated with the clinical symptoms of cough, fever, and fatigue; but each of the other respiratory viruses occasionally caused these symptoms or was responsible for symptoms severe enough to require hospitalization. Human coronaviruses HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-229E circulated at low levels throughout the study period with peak activity in winter, but overall did not circulate as widely as has often been reported for these agents. Evidence for the human metapneumovirus (hMPV) was only sought in the second year of the study and revealed low-level circulation of this virus, mainly in the cooler months among the very young and adult populations. The detection rate of all viruses declined with increasing age of the patient, particularly in hospital patients. Infection with more than one respiratory virus occurred in a small number of patients; picornaviruses were most commonly implicated in these dual infections.

Comparison of a Rapid Antigen Test with Nucleic Acid Testing during Cocirculation of Pandemic Influenza A/H1N1 2009 and Seasonal Influenza A/H3N2

“…Furthermore, RAT do not distinguish the different influenza A virus subtypes. Although viral culture remains the "gold standard" for the diagnosis of influenza, nucleic acid testing (NAT) using reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) has become the method of choice in many laboratories due to its increased sensitivity (2,6) and its ability to subtype using a multiplex platform. However, both RT-PCR and viral culture have longer turnaround times than RAT and require specialized equipment and technical expertise.…”

Evaluation of a Multiplexed PCR Assay for Detection of Respiratory Viral Pathogens in a Public Health Laboratory Setting

“…When new, potentially lethal pathogens are identified, one of the first lines of action is to begin surveillance testing (11,18). In recent years, outbreak surveillance programs have brought into play molecular testing to quickly and accurately diagnose regional patient populations (6,13,22,31,49). This is because molecular testing requires only the agent's genetic fingerprint, and assay development cycles are short (1 to 4 weeks).…”

Identifying viral infections in vaccinated Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients using clinical features and inflammatory markers

“…Respiratory virus multiplex PCR was performed at the Victorian Infectious Disease Reference Laboratory 7 . A panel of nested PCR assays capable of detecting 10 respiratory viruses was used for amplification of nucleic acid sequences and viral identification.…”

“…Respiratory‐virus detection methods such as multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and immunofluorescence usually take at least 24–48 hours to obtain a result, are relatively expensive, are not widely available in primary practice and may not identify all possible respiratory viruses 7 , 8 . Therefore, alternative methods of rapidly and accurately differentiating viral episodes may be useful to guide treatment decision‐making at the onset of AECOPD.…”