tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
During the April-July 2009 outbreak of H1N1/2009 in scotland the West of Scotland Specialist Virology Centre (WoSSVC) in Glasgow tested >16 000 clinical samples for H1N1/2009. Most were from patients clinically diagnosed with H1N1/2009.
Out of these, 9% were positive. This study sought to determine what respiratory pathogens were misdiagnosed as cases of H1N1/2009 during this time.
Methods: We examined the results from 3247 samples which were sent to the laboratory during April-July 2009.
All were from patients clinically diagnosed as having H1N1/2009 (based on accepted criteria) and all were given a full respiratory screen using real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rtRT-PCR) assays.
Results: In total, respiratory pathogens were detected in 27.9% (95% confidence interval, 26.3-29.5%) of the samples submitted. Numerous pathogens were detected, the most common of which were rhinovirus (8.9% (95% confidence interval, 7.9-9.9%)), parainfluenza 1 (1.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.4-2.4%)) and 3 (4.1% (95% confidence interval, 3.3-4.9%)), and adenovirus ((3.5% (95% confidence interval, 2.9-4.2%)).
Conclusions: This study highlights the problems of using a clinical algorithm to detect H1N1/2009.
Clinicians frequently misdiagnosed common respiratory pathogens as H1N1/2009 during the spring/summer outbreak in Scotland. Many undesirable consequences would have resulted, relating to treatment, infection control, and public health surveillance.
Author: Rory GunsonWilliam Carman
Credits/Source: BMC Infectious Diseases 2011, 11:192
Published on: 2011-07-13
http://7thspace.com/headlines/38915...ory_pathogens_were_diagnosed_as_h1n12009.html
Out of these, 9% were positive. This study sought to determine what respiratory pathogens were misdiagnosed as cases of H1N1/2009 during this time.
Methods: We examined the results from 3247 samples which were sent to the laboratory during April-July 2009.
All were from patients clinically diagnosed as having H1N1/2009 (based on accepted criteria) and all were given a full respiratory screen using real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rtRT-PCR) assays.
Results: In total, respiratory pathogens were detected in 27.9% (95% confidence interval, 26.3-29.5%) of the samples submitted. Numerous pathogens were detected, the most common of which were rhinovirus (8.9% (95% confidence interval, 7.9-9.9%)), parainfluenza 1 (1.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.4-2.4%)) and 3 (4.1% (95% confidence interval, 3.3-4.9%)), and adenovirus ((3.5% (95% confidence interval, 2.9-4.2%)).
Conclusions: This study highlights the problems of using a clinical algorithm to detect H1N1/2009.
Clinicians frequently misdiagnosed common respiratory pathogens as H1N1/2009 during the spring/summer outbreak in Scotland. Many undesirable consequences would have resulted, relating to treatment, infection control, and public health surveillance.
Author: Rory GunsonWilliam Carman
Credits/Source: BMC Infectious Diseases 2011, 11:192
Published on: 2011-07-13
http://7thspace.com/headlines/38915...ory_pathogens_were_diagnosed_as_h1n12009.html