Why the study?
Does the addition of BGM and RD cell lines improve the detection rate and speed of enterovirus isolation compared to traditional HEL and CMK cells in clinical specimens?
Does the addition of BGM and RD cell lines improve the detection rate and speed of enterovirus isolation compared to traditional HEL and CMK cells in clinical specimens?
The addition of BGM and RD cell lines to traditional cell cultures improves the sensitivity and rapidity of enterovirus detection in clinical specimens.
May improve lab EV detection; leaves open effects on clinical outcomes or practice.
Isolation in cell culture is currently the most sensitive and reliable way to demonstrate enterovirus (EV) in clinical specimens. During July-October 1982 and 1983, we studied the impact of adding two new cell lines, Buffalo green monkey kidney (BGM) and human rhabdomyosarcoma (RD), to the more traditional cell combination used for EV isolation, human embryonic lung (HEL) and primary cynomolgus monkey kidney (CMK) cells; 2,558 specimens were studied: 632 fecal, 677 respiratory, 537 CSF, and 712 blood. An EV was isolated from 417 (16%); of these, 77 (18%) were positive only in BGM or RD; 35% (146/417) of the specimens were positive in BGM, RD, or both, at least one day earlier than in the traditional cells. BGM cells were helpful in isolation of group B coxsackieviruses (CB): 99% of 121 positive specimens were detected in BGM vs 73% in CMK and 23% in HEL; 72% of the CB isolates were detected by day 2 in BGM vs 48% in CMK and 0% in HEL. RD cells were helpful in the isolation of echoviruses: 59% of the 189 positive specimens were detected in RD vs 67% in HEL and 58% in CMK. RD was the only positive cell type in 28/189 (15%) positive specimens; 31% of the echovirus isolates were detected by day 2 in RD, vs 20% in HEL and 19% in CMK. Using the cell types described, we provided the clinician with results in 42% of the EV-positive specimens by day 2 after inoculation and in 61% by day 4.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dagan et al. (1986) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: