Publication:
The PneuCarriage Project: A Multi-Centre Comparative Study to Identify the Best Serotyping Methods for Examining Pneumococcal Carriage in Vaccine Evaluation Studies

dc.contributor.authorCatherine Satzkeen_US
dc.contributor.authorEileen M. Dunneen_US
dc.contributor.authorBarbara D. Porteren_US
dc.contributor.authorKeith P. Klugmanen_US
dc.contributor.authorE. Kim Mulhollanden_US
dc.contributor.authorJorge E. Vidalen_US
dc.contributor.authorFuminori Sakaien_US
dc.contributor.authorJanet E. Strachanen_US
dc.contributor.authorDeborah C. Hay Burgessen_US
dc.contributor.authorDouglas Holtzmanen_US
dc.contributor.authorK. Boelsenen_US
dc.contributor.authorMaha Habiben_US
dc.contributor.authorJayne Manningen_US
dc.contributor.authorBelinda D. Ortikaen_US
dc.contributor.authorCasey L. Pellen_US
dc.contributor.authorJenna A. Smythen_US
dc.contributor.authorMartin Antonioen_US
dc.contributor.authorKeith P. Klugmanen_US
dc.contributor.authorKatherine L. O’Brienen_US
dc.contributor.authorRoy M. Robins-Browneen_US
dc.contributor.authorJ. Anthony Scotten_US
dc.contributor.authorSamir K. Sahaen_US
dc.contributor.authorFiona M. Russellen_US
dc.contributor.authorAndrew R. Greenhillen_US
dc.contributor.authorDeborah Lehmannen_US
dc.contributor.authorPeter V. Adrianen_US
dc.contributor.authorShabir A. Madhien_US
dc.contributor.authorLorry G. Rubinen_US
dc.contributor.authorAtqia Rizvien_US
dc.contributor.authorJason Hindsen_US
dc.contributor.authorKatherine A. Goulden_US
dc.contributor.authorFanrong Kongen_US
dc.contributor.authorShahin Oftadehen_US
dc.contributor.authorGwendolyn L. Gilberten_US
dc.contributor.authorLu Fengen_US
dc.contributor.authorBoyang Caoen_US
dc.contributor.authorGláucia Paranhos-Baccalàen_US
dc.contributor.authorJean Noel Tellesen_US
dc.contributor.authorMélina Messaoudien_US
dc.contributor.authorRay Borrowen_US
dc.contributor.authorElaine Stanforden_US
dc.contributor.authorRobert Georgeen_US
dc.contributor.authorCarmen Shepparden_US
dc.contributor.authorSilvio D. Bruggeren_US
dc.contributor.authorKathrin Mühlemannen_US
dc.contributor.authorMarkus Hiltyen_US
dc.contributor.authorIsmar A. Rivera-Oliveroen_US
dc.contributor.authorJacobus H. de Waarden_US
dc.contributor.authorBambos M. Charalambousen_US
dc.contributor.authorMarcus H. Leungen_US
dc.contributor.authorChiara Azzarien_US
dc.contributor.authorMaria Moriondoen_US
dc.contributor.authorFrancesco Niedduen_US
dc.contributor.authorPeter W.M. Hermansen_US
dc.contributor.authorChrista E. van der Gaast-de Jonghen_US
dc.contributor.authorPaul Turneren_US
dc.contributor.authorDavid J. Eckeren_US
dc.contributor.authorRangarajan Sampathen_US
dc.contributor.otherRoyal Children's Hospital, Melbourneen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Melbourneen_US
dc.contributor.otherRollins School of Public Healthen_US
dc.contributor.otherLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicineen_US
dc.contributor.otherBill and Melinda Gates Foundationen_US
dc.contributor.otherKimataifa Diagnostics & Devices Consultingen_US
dc.contributor.otherTakeda Vaccinesen_US
dc.contributor.otherMurdoch Children's Research Instituteen_US
dc.contributor.otherVaccinology Themeen_US
dc.contributor.otherJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Healthen_US
dc.contributor.otherKenya Medical Research Instituteen_US
dc.contributor.otherDhaka Shishu Hospitalen_US
dc.contributor.otherPapua New Guinea Institute of Medical Researchen_US
dc.contributor.otherFederation University Australiaen_US
dc.contributor.otherTelethon Kids Instituteen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Witwatersranden_US
dc.contributor.otherChildren's Medical Centeren_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Londonen_US
dc.contributor.otherWestmead Hospitalen_US
dc.contributor.otherThe University of Sydneyen_US
dc.contributor.otherNankai Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherPublic Health Englanden_US
dc.contributor.otherStatens Serum Instituten_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Bernen_US
dc.contributor.otherThe Forsyth Instituteen_US
dc.contributor.otherHarvard School of Dental Medicineen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversitatsSpital Bernen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversidad Central de Venezuelaen_US
dc.contributor.otherUCLen_US
dc.contributor.otherCity University of Hong Kongen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversita degli Studi di Firenzeen_US
dc.contributor.otherRadboud University Nijmegen Medical Centreen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherAngkor Hospital for Childrenen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Oxforden_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-23T10:32:32Z
dc.date.available2018-11-23T10:32:32Z
dc.date.issued2015-11-01en_US
dc.description.abstract© 2015 Satzke et al. Background: The pneumococcus is a diverse pathogen whose primary niche is the nasopharynx. Over 90 different serotypes exist, and nasopharyngeal carriage of multiple serotypes is common. Understanding pneumococcal carriage is essential for evaluating the impact of pneumococcal vaccines. Traditional serotyping methods are cumbersome and insufficient for detecting multiple serotype carriage, and there are few data comparing the new methods that have been developed over the past decade. We established the PneuCarriage project, a large, international multi-centre study dedicated to the identification of the best pneumococcal serotyping methods for carriage studies. Methods and Findings: Reference sample sets were distributed to 15 research groups for blinded testing. Twenty pneumococcal serotyping methods were used to test 81 laboratory-prepared (spiked) samples. The five top-performing methods were used to test 260 nasopharyngeal (field) samples collected from children in six high-burden countries. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were determined for the test methods and the reference method (traditional serotyping of >100 colonies from each sample). For the alternate serotyping methods, the overall sensitivity ranged from 1% to 99% (reference method 98%), and PPV from 8% to 100% (reference method 100%), when testing the spiked samples. Fifteen methods had ≥70% sensitivity to detect the dominant (major) serotype, whilst only eight methods had ≥70% sensitivity to detect minor serotypes. For the field samples, the overall sensitivity ranged from 74.2% to 95.8% (reference method 93.8%), and PPV from 82.2% to 96.4% (reference method 99.6%). The microarray had the highest sensitivity (95.8%) and high PPV (93.7%). The major limitation of this study is that not all of the available alternative serotyping methods were included. Conclusions: Most methods were able to detect the dominant serotype in a sample, but many performed poorly in detecting the minor serotype populations. Microarray with a culture amplification step was the top-performing method. Results from this comprehensive evaluation will inform future vaccine evaluation and impact studies, particularly in low-income settings, where pneumococcal disease burden remains high.en_US
dc.identifier.citationPLoS Medicine. Vol.12, No.11 (2015)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pmed.1001903en_US
dc.identifier.issn15491676en_US
dc.identifier.issn15491277en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85000501013en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/36279
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85000501013&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleThe PneuCarriage Project: A Multi-Centre Comparative Study to Identify the Best Serotyping Methods for Examining Pneumococcal Carriage in Vaccine Evaluation Studiesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85000501013&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections