French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), Nancy Laboratory for Rabies and Wildlife, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Management in Zoonoses Control, OIE Reference Laboratory for Rabies, European Union Reference Laboratory for Rabies, European Union Reference Institute for Rabies Serology, Technopôle Agricole et Vétérinaire, BP 40009, 54220 Malzéville cedex, France.
J Virol Methods. 2011 Oct;177(1):15-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2011.06.004. Epub 2011 Jun 14.
Interlaboratory trials on rabies diagnosis were organised in 2009 and in 2010 by the European Union Reference Laboratory (EURL) for rabies. In 2009, two panels of virus samples were sent to participating laboratories to compare results on reference diagnosis techniques and on RT-PCR. A single panel was sent in 2010 to test FAT (fluorescent antibody test), RTCIT (rabies tissue culture infection test) and RT-PCR techniques. The virus panels included the RABV, EBLV-1, EBLV-2 and ABLV strains. Results revealed that laboratories produced the highest proportion of concordant results using RT-PCR (90.5%) and FAT (87.1%), followed by RTCIT (70.0%) and MIT (35.0%) in 2009 and in FAT (85.0%) and RT-PCR (80.6%) followed by RTCIT (77.3%) in 2010. Errors were only observed in bat strains (i.e. none in the RABV strain) for the RT-PCR or FAT techniques, highlighting the need to improve diagnosis most specifically in such strains. RT-PCR was the technique showing the lowest rate of false negative results in either trial year, while RTCIT and MIT (performed in 2009 only) were the techniques with the lowest proportion of false positive results. Nevertheless, the FAT technique represented a good compromise with both satisfactory sensitivity and specificity, as only a few false positive (1.6% in 2009, 5.8% in 2010) and false negative results (1.6% in both 2009 and 2010) were detected. The analysis of technical questionnaires describing the protocols used by participating laboratories revealed variation in the methods used that may induce inconsistencies in the results. In this study, the number of readers for FAT slide examination was identified as a factor affecting significantly the results of laboratories, suggesting that two independent readers are necessary for routine rabies diagnosis. Our findings highlight the need for all rabies diagnostic laboratories to improve harmonisation of procedures.
2009 年和 2010 年,欧盟狂犬病参考实验室(EURL)组织了狂犬病诊断的实验室间试验。2009 年,向参与实验室发送了两组病毒样本,以比较参考诊断技术和 RT-PCR 的结果。2010 年,仅发送了一组样本,以测试 FAT(荧光抗体试验)、RTCIT(狂犬病组织培养感染试验)和 RT-PCR 技术。病毒组包括 RABV、EBLV-1、EBLV-2 和 ABLV 株。结果表明,实验室使用 RT-PCR(90.5%)和 FAT(87.1%)获得了最高比例的一致性结果,其次是 RTCIT(70.0%)和 MIT(35.0%)在 2009 年和在 FAT(85.0%)和 RT-PCR(80.6%)之后是 RTCIT(77.3%)在 2010 年。仅在 RT-PCR 或 FAT 技术中观察到蝙蝠株(即 RABV 株中无)的错误,突出表明最需要特别改善此类株的诊断。RT-PCR 是在两个试验年度中假阴性结果率最低的技术,而 RTCIT 和 MIT(仅在 2009 年进行)是假阳性结果比例最低的技术。然而,FAT 技术是一种很好的折衷方案,具有令人满意的敏感性和特异性,因为仅检测到少数假阳性(2009 年为 1.6%,2010 年为 5.8%)和假阴性结果(2009 年和 2010 年均为 1.6%)。分析描述参与实验室使用的方案的技术问卷表明,使用的方法存在差异,这可能导致结果不一致。在这项研究中,FAT 幻灯片检查的读者数量被确定为影响实验室结果的一个因素,这表明常规狂犬病诊断需要两名独立的读者。我们的研究结果强调了所有狂犬病诊断实验室都需要提高程序协调一致的必要性。