• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Vaccine. Validation of diagnostic tests for detection of avian influenza in vaccinated chickens using Bayesian analysis.

Giuseppe

Emeritus
Vaccine. 2009 Dec 15. [Epub ahead of print]

Validation of diagnostic tests for detection of avian influenza in vaccinated chickens using Bayesian analysis.

van der Goot JA, Engel B, van de Water SG, Buist W, de Jong MC, Koch G, van Boven M, Stegeman A. - Central Veterinary Institute (CVI), Wageningen University & Research Center, P.O. Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands.

Vaccination is an attractive tool for the prevention of outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in domestic birds. It is known, however, that under certain circumstances vaccination may fail to prevent infection, and that the detection of infection in vaccinated birds can be problematic. Here, we investigate the characteristics of three serological tests (immunofluorescent antibody test (iIFAT), neuraminidase inhibition (NI) assay, and NS1 ELISA) that are able to differentiate infected from vaccinated animals. To this end, data of H7N7 infection experiments are analyzed using Bayesian methods of inference. These Bayesian methods enable validation of the tests in the absence of a gold standard, and allow one to take into account that infected birds do not always develop antibodies after infection. The results show that the N7 iIFAT and the NI assay have sensitivities for detecting antibodies of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.89-0.98) and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.78-0.99), but substantially lower sensitivities for detecting infection: 0.64 (95% CI: 0.52-0.75) and 0.63 (95% CI: 0.49-0.75). The NS1 ELISA has a low sensitivity for both detecting antibodies (0.55 (95% CI: 0.34-0.74)) and infection (0.42 (95% CI: 0.28-0.56)). The estimated specificities of the N7 iIFAT and the NI assay are 0.92 (95% CI: 0.87-0.95) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85-0.95), and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74-0.87) for the NS1 ELISA. Additionally, our analyses suggest a strong association between the duration of virus excretion of infected birds and the probability to develop antibodies.

Copyright ? 2009. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

PMID: 20025919 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

-
------
 
Back
Top