Publication: Comparison of two commercial ELISA kits for the detection of anti-dengue IgM for routine dengue diagnosis in Laos
Issued Date
2019-07-25
Resource Type
ISSN
24146366
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85072112296
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease. Vol.4, No.3 (2019)
Suggested Citation
Yixiao Lu, Onanong Sengvilaipaseuth, Anisone Chanthongthip, Ooyanong Phonemixay, Manivanh Vongsouvath, Phonelavanh Phouminh, Stuart D. Blacksell, Paul N. Newton, Audrey Dubot-Pérès Comparison of two commercial ELISA kits for the detection of anti-dengue IgM for routine dengue diagnosis in Laos. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease. Vol.4, No.3 (2019). doi:10.3390/tropicalmed4030111 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/51039
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Comparison of two commercial ELISA kits for the detection of anti-dengue IgM for routine dengue diagnosis in Laos
Abstract
© 2019 by the authors. The endemicity of Dengue virus (DENV) infection remains a major public health problem in Lao PDR. In this study, we compared two commercial anti-dengue IgM ELISA kits, Panbio® Dengue IgM Capture ELISA (Panbio Kit, Alere, Waltham, MA, USA) and DEN DetectTM MAC-ELISA (InBios kit, InBios International, Inc., Seattle, WA, USA), in the context of diagnosis of patients admitted to hospital with clinical dengue presentation. Two panels of paired blood samples were tested. Panel A was composed of 54 dengue confirmed patients (by DENV real-time RT-PCR) and 11 non-dengue dengue patients (other infections confirmed by corresponding PCR results). Panel B included 74 patients randomly selected from consecutive patients admitted to Mahosot Hospital in 2008 with suspicion of dengue fever according to WHO criteria. Results from panel A showed significantly better sensitivity for Panbio kit (64.8%; 95%CI: 50.6-77.3%) than for InBios kit (18.5%; 95%CI: 9.3-31.4%) when testing admission sera. Sensitivity was increased for both kits when combining results from admission and convalescent sera. Concordant results were obtained from panel B with fair agreement (κ = 0.29) between both kits when testing single admission samples, and moderate agreement (κ = 0.5) when combining results from admission and convalescent sera.