Rapid viral diagnosis of acute respiratory infections: comparison of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and the immunofluorescence technique for detection of viral antigens in nasopharyngeal secretions

Abstract

Nasopharyngeal secretions from adults and children were obtained in Stockholm, Sweden, for routine diagnosis of influenza A virus, influenza B virus, respiratory syncytial (RS) virus, parainfluenza type 3 virus, and adenovirus infections by demonstration of viral antigens directly in the specimens. The cells in nasopharyngeal secretions were pelleted by centrifugation for preparation of cell deposits for diagnosis by the immunofluorescence technique (IF) in London, England, and in Stockholm, whereas the supernatants were used to diagnose infection by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in Stockholm. Titrations of the various purified viruses showed that ELISA could detect viral antigens in amounts corresponding to 1 to 10 ng of virus protein per test well. In a series of 73 specimens tested for influenza A, RS, and parainfluenza type 3 viruses by IF in London and by ELISA in Stockholm, 15 of 18 RS, 14 of 15 influenza A, and 2 of 2 parainfluenza type 3 viral infections were diagnosed by ELISA as compared with IF, giving sensitivities for RS and influenza A viral diagnosis of 83 and 93%, respectively, and a specificity of 100%. In another series of specimens from 35 patients tested for influenza B virus and adenovirus, five influenza B virus and four adenovirus infections were diagnosed by both methods; one additional influenza B infection was detected only by IF and another only by ELISA. Comparisons of diagnostic results between the two methods performed in Stockholm gave nonagreement of results for 37 of 1,593 tests (2.5%) for the five viruses. The conclusion reached was that the described ELISA, although a satisfactory test, had somewhat less sensitivity than did IF for the detection of respiratory viral infections. This could possibly be explained by unnecessary dilutions of specimens at the time of collection; transportation, processing, and storage of specimens were less complicated than for IF.