22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Serological Diagnosis of Flavivirus-Associated Human Infections

      review-article
      1 , 2 , * , 3
      Diagnostics
      MDPI
      antigenic cross-reactivity, arbovirus, diagnosis, Flavivirus, immunoassay, infection, serology

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Arthropod-borne viruses (arboviruses) belonging to the Flavivirus genus of the Flaviviridae family, are a major public health threat in tropical and subtropical regions, and have recently become a medical concern in temperate zones. Most flaviviruses are classified as zoonotic viruses. Human flavivirus infections can be asymptomatic, responsible for unspecific symptoms in the first few days following infection, or responsible for severe complications potentially resulting in death. During the first days following symptom onset, laboratory diagnosis of acute human flavivirus infection is mainly based on molecular detection of the viral genome by RT-PCR methods, followed by the capture of specific antibodies using serological tests after the first week of infection. The detection of antibodies that have virus neutralizing activity can be used to confirm flavivirus infection. However, human flavivirus infections induce the production of cross-reactive antibodies, often making serology inconclusive. Indeed, serological diagnosis of flavivirus infection can be hampered by a patient’s history of flavivirus exposure, particularly in regions where multiple antigenically related flaviviruses co-circulate. We focus our mini review on conventional immunoassays that allow the diagnosis of major flavivirus-associated human infections in basic, routine and high-profile central health centers; and the interpretation of diagnostic serology tests for patients living within different epidemiological situations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references75

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The outbreak of West Nile virus infection in the New York City area in 1999.

          In late August 1999, an unusual cluster of cases of meningoencephalitis associated with muscle weakness was reported to the New York City Department of Health. The initial epidemiologic and environmental investigations suggested an arboviral cause. Active surveillance was implemented to identify patients hospitalized with viral encephalitis and meningitis. Cerebrospinal fluid, serum, and tissue specimens from patients with suspected cases underwent serologic and viral testing for evidence of arboviral infection. Outbreak surveillance identified 59 patients who were hospitalized with West Nile virus infection in the New York City area during August and September of 1999. The median age of these patients was 71 years (range, 5 to 95). The overall attack rate of clinical West Nile virus infection was at least 6.5 cases per million population, and it increased sharply with age. Most of the patients (63 percent) had clinical signs of encephalitis; seven patients died (12 percent). Muscle weakness was documented in 27 percent of the patients and flaccid paralysis in 10 percent; in all of the latter, nerve conduction studies indicated an axonal polyneuropathy in 14 percent. An age of 75 years or older was an independent risk factor for death (relative risk adjusted for the presence or absence of diabetes mellitus, 8.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.2 to 59.1), as was the presence of diabetes mellitus (age-adjusted relative risk, 5.1; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.5 to 17.3). This outbreak of West Nile meningoencephalitis in the New York City metropolitan area represents the first time this virus has been detected in the Western Hemisphere. Given the subsequent rapid spread of the virus, physicians along the eastern seaboard of the United States should consider West Nile virus infection in the differential diagnosis of encephalitis and viral meningitis during the summer months, especially in older patients and in those with muscle weakness.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Antibody-enhanced dengue virus infection in primate leukocytes.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Covert COVID-19 and false-positive dengue serology in Singapore

              Dengue and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are difficult to distinguish because they have shared clinical and laboratory features.1, 2 We describe two patients in Singapore with false-positive results from rapid serological testing for dengue, who were later confirmed to have severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, the causative virus of COVID-19. The first case is a 57-year-old man with no relevant past medical, travel, or contact history, who presented to a regional hospital on Feb 9, 2020, with 3 days of fever and cough. He had thrombocytopenia (platelet count 140 × 109/mL) and a normal chest radiograph. He was discharged after a negative rapid test for dengue NS1, IgM, and IgG (SD Bioline Dengue Duo Kit; Abbott, South Korea). He returned to a public primary health-care clinic with persistent fever, worsening thrombocytopenia (89 × 109/mL), and new onset lymphopenia (0·43 × 109/mL). A repeat dengue rapid test was positive for dengue IgM and IgG (Dengue Combo; Wells Bio, South Korea). He was referred to hospital for dengue with worsening cough and dyspnoea. A chest radiograph led to testing for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR (in-house laboratory-developed test detecting the N and ORF1ab genes) from a nasopharyngeal swab, which returned positive. The original seropositive sample and additional urine and blood samples tested negative for dengue, chikungunya, and Zika viruses by RT-PCR,3, 4, 5 and a repeat dengue rapid test (SD Bioline) was also negative. Thus, the initial dengue seroconversion result was deemed a false positive. The second case is a 57-year-old woman with no relevant past medical, travel, or contact history, who presented to a regional hospital on Feb 13, 2020, with fever, myalgia, a mild cough of 4 days, and 2 days of diarrhoea. She had thrombocytopenia (92 × 109/mL) and tested positive for dengue IgM (SD Bioline). She was discharged with outpatient follow up for dengue fever. She returned 2 days later with a persistent fever, worsening thrombocytopenia (65 × 109/mL), and new onset lymphopenia (0·94 × 109/mL). Liver function tests were abnormal (aspartate aminotransferase 69 U/L [reference range 10–30 U/L], alanine aminotransferase 67 U/L [reference range <55 U/L], total bilirubin 35·8 μmol/L [reference range 4·7–23·2 μmol/L]). Chest radiography was normal and she was admitted for dengue fever. She remained febrile despite normalisation of her blood counts and developed dyspnoea 3 days after admission. She was found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR from a nasopharyngeal swab. A repeat dengue test (SD Bioline) was negative and an earlier blood sample also tested negative for dengue by RT-PCR. 6 The initial dengue IgM result was deemed to be a false positive. Failing to consider COVID-19 because of a positive dengue rapid test result has serious implications not only for the patient but also for public health. Our cases highlight the importance of recognising false-positive dengue serology results (with different commercially available assays) in patients with COVID-19. We emphasise the urgent need for rapid, sensitive, and accessible diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2, which need to be highly accurate to protect public health.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Diagnostics (Basel)
                Diagnostics (Basel)
                diagnostics
                Diagnostics
                MDPI
                2075-4418
                14 May 2020
                May 2020
                : 10
                : 5
                : 302
                Affiliations
                [1 ]IRD, AP-HM, SSA, VITROME, IHU-Méditerranée infection, Aix Marseille Université, 13005 Marseille, France
                [2 ]Laboratoire Eurofins Labazur Guyane, 35 rue Lieutenant Brassé, 97300 Cayenne, French Guiana
                [3 ]INSERM U1187, CNRS UMR 9192, IRD UMR 249, Unité Mixte Processus Infectieux en Milieu Insulaire Tropical, Plateforme Technologique CYROI, Université de La Réunion, 97491 Sainte-Clotilde, La Réunion, France; philippe.despres@ 123456univ-reunion.fr
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: dmusso12345@ 123456gmail.com
                [†]

                These authors contributed equally to this work.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8926-4050
                Article
                diagnostics-10-00302
                10.3390/diagnostics10050302
                7277941
                32423058
                3bfdd364-b88f-4088-bafc-4e32d3a1e518
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 06 April 2020
                : 04 May 2020
                Categories
                Review

                antigenic cross-reactivity,arbovirus,diagnosis,flavivirus,immunoassay,infection,serology

                Comments

                Comment on this article