Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T00:47:25.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Failure of Routine Diagnostic Methods to Detect Influenza in Hospitalized Older Adults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

H. Keipp Talbot ,
John V. Williams ,
Yuwei Zhu ,
Katherine A. Poehling ,
Marie R. Griffin  and
Kathryn M. Edwards
H. Keipp Talbot*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee
John V. Williams
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Nashville, Tennessee Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
Yuwei Zhu
Affiliation:
Department of Biostatistics, Nashville, Tennessee
Katherine A. Poehling
Affiliation:
Departments of Pediatrics and Epidemiology and Prevention, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Marie R. Griffin
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee Department of Preventive Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee Mid-South Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center and Clinical Research Center of Excellence, Veterans Affairs Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, Tennessee
Kathryn M. Edwards
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Nashville, Tennessee
*
Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, A2200 MCN, 1161 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37232 (keipp.talbot@vanderbilt.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Objective.

To define the utility of using routine diagnostic methods to detect influenza in older, hospitalized adults.

Design.

Descriptive study.

Setting.

One academic hospital and 1 community hospital during the 2006–2007 and 2007–2008 influenza seasons.

Participants.

Hospitalized adults 50 years of age or older.

Methods.

Adults who were 50 years of age or older and hospitalized with symptoms of respiratory illness were enrolled and tested for influenza by use of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Using RT-PCR as the gold standard, we assessed the performances of rapid antigen tests and conventional influenza culture and the diagnostic use of the clinical definition of influenza-like illness.

Results.

Influenza was detected by use of RT-PCR in 26 (11%) of 228 patients enrolled in our study. The sensitivity of the rapid antigen test performed at bedside by research staff members was 19.2% (95% confidence interval, 8.51%–37.9%); the sensitivity of conventional influenza culture was 34.6% (95% confidence interval, 19.4%–53.8%). The ability to detect influenza with both the rapid antigen test and culture was associated with patients with a higher viral load (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively). The ability to diagnose influenza by use of the clinical definition of influenza-like illness had a higher sensitivity (80.8%) but lacked specificity (40.6%).

Conclusion.

Because rapid antigen testing and viral culture have poor sensitivity (19.2% and 34.6%, respectively), neither testing method is sufficient to use to determine what type of isolation procedures to implement in a hospital setting.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 31 , Issue 7 , July 2010 , pp. 683 - 688
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Thompson, WW, Shay, DK, Weintraub, E, et al. Mortality associated with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United States. JAMA 2003;289(2): 179–186.Google Scholar
2.Thompson, WW, Shay, DK, Weintraub, E, et al. Influenza-associated hospitalizations in the United States. JAMA 2004;292(11): 1333–1340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Barker, WH, Menegus, MA, Hall, CB, et al. Communitywide laboratory-based influenza surveillance focused on older persons, 1989-1992. Am J Prev Med 1995;11(3): 149–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Flamaing, J, Engelmann, I, Joosten, E, Van Ranst, M, Verhaegen, J, Peetermans, WE. Viral lower respiratory tract infection in the elderly: a prospective in-hospital study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2003;22(12): 720–725.Google Scholar
5.Falsey, AR, Murata, Y, Walsh, EE. Impact of rapid diagnosis on management of adults hospitalized with influenza. Arch Intern Med 2007;167(4): 354–360.Google Scholar
6.Steininger, C, Redlberger, M, Graninger, W, Kundi, M, Popow-Kraupp, T. Near-patient assays for diagnosis of influenza virus infection in adult patients. Clin Microbiol Infect 2009;15(3): 267–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Poehling, KA, Griffin, MR, Dittus, RS, et al. Bedside diagnosis of influenzavirus infections in hospitalized children. Pediatrics 2002;110(1 Pt 1): 83–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Rashid, H, Shafi, S, Haworth, E, et al. Value of rapid testing for influenza among Hajj pilgrims. Travel Med Infect Dis 2007;5(5): 310–313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.van Eiden, LJ, Nijhuis, M, Schipper, P, Schuurman, R, van Loon, AM. Simultaneous detection of influenza viruses A and B using real-time quantitative PCR. J Clin Microbiol 2001;39(1):196–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Ward, CL, Dempsey, MH, Ring, CJ, et al. Design and performance testing of quantitative real time PCR assays for influenza A and B viral load measurement. J Clin Virol 2004;29(3): 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Weinberg, GA, Erdman, DD, Edwards, KM, et al. Superiority of reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction to conventional viral culture in the diagnosis of acute respiratory tract infections in children. J Infect Dis 2004;189(4): 706–710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Brammer, TL, Murray, EL, Fukuda, K, Hall, HE, Klimov, A, Cox, NJ. Surveillance for influenza—United States, 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-00 seasons. MMWR Surveill Summ 2002;51(7): 1–10.Google ScholarPubMed
13.Matthey, S, Nicholson, D, Ruhs, S, et al. Rapid detection of respiratory viruses by shell vial culture and direct staining by using pooled and individual monoclonal antibodies. J Clin Microbiol 1992;30(3): 540–544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Rahman, M, Kieke, BA, Vandermause, MF, Mitchell, PD, Greenlee, RT, Belongia, EA. Performance of Directigen flu A+B enzyme immunoassay and direct fluorescent assay for detection of influenza infection during the 2004-2005 season. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2007;58(4): 413–418.Google Scholar
15.Walsh, EE, Cox, C, Falsey, AR. Clinical features of influenza A virus infection in older hospitalized persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002;50(9):1498–1503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Neuzil, KM, O'Connor, TZ, Gorse, GJ, Nichol, KL. Recognizing influenza in older patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who have received influenza vaccine. Clin Infect Dis 2003;36(2): 169–174.Google Scholar
17.Govaert, TM, Dinant, GJ, Aretz, K, Knottnerus, JA. The predictive value of influenza symptomatology in elderly people. Fam Pract 1998;15(1): 16–22.Google Scholar
18.Babcock, HM, Merz, LR, Dubberke, ER, Fraser, VJ. Case-control study of clinical features of influenza in hospitalized patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29(10): 921–926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: influenza activity— United States, September 28-November 29, 2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008;57(49): 1329–1332.Google Scholar
20.Lee, N, Chan, PK, Hui, DS, et al. Viral loads and duration of viral shedding in adult patients hospitalized with influenza. J Infect Dis 2009;200(4): 492–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed