Key result
The EV71 RT-LAMP assay yielded a higher positive detection rate (51.7%) than conventional RT-PCR (45%), while the CoxA16 RT-LAMP assay showed an equivalent rate (11.7%) in suspected HFMD patients.
Why the study?
Do EV71 and CoxA16 RT-LAMP assays improve detection sensitivity compared to conventional RT-PCR in suspect HFMD patients?
Observational (n=60)
Do EV71 and CoxA16 RT-LAMP assays improve detection sensitivity compared to conventional RT-PCR in suspect HFMD patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 51.7% vs 45%
RT-LAMP assays provide a rapid and highly sensitive method for detecting EV71 and CoxA16, potentially improving diagnosis during HFMD outbreaks.
May enhance EV71 detection in HFMD outbreaks; leaves open whether RT-LAMP should replace RT-PCR pending validation.
Human enterovirus 71 and coxsackievirus A16 are two of the major causative agents of hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD). EV71 and CoxA16 infections in HFMD are clinically indistinguishable, but EV71 infection is more frequently associated with serious neurological complications and fatalities. In this study, two specific reverse-transcription-loop-mediated isothermal amplii¬cation (RT-LAMP) assays were developed for the detection of EV71 and CoxA16. High specificity systems for the EV71 and CoxA16 RT-LAMP systems have been confirmed by ruling out cross-reactivity with RNA of other common enteric viruses. The EV71 and CoxA16 RT-LAMP assays were found to be 10-fold and 100-fold more sensitive than conventional PCR, respectively, with detection limits of both 101 copies. To evaluate the application of the two RT-LAMP assays for clinical diagnosis, 60 stool specimens from suspect HFMD patients were detected and all samples were achieved in less than 60 min (even as little as 10 to 15 min). The positive rate of the EV71 RT-LAMP assay was higher (31/60=51.7%) than the RT-PCR assay (27/60=45%), while the positive rate of the CoxA16 RT-LAMP assay was equivalent to that of the RT-PCR assay (7/60=11.7%). These results indicate that the two RT-LAMP systems are potentially useful for rapid and sensitive diagnosis during HFMD outbreaks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2013) conducted an observational in Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) (n=60). EV71 and CoxA16 RT-LAMP assays vs. RT-PCR assay was evaluated on Positive detection rate of EV71. The EV71 RT-LAMP assay yielded a higher positive detection rate (51.7%) than conventional RT-PCR (45%), while the CoxA16 RT-LAMP assay showed an equivalent rate (11.7%) in suspected HFMD patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: