The Value of latex agglutination for rotavirus and adenovirus in patients with diarrhea /
Rowena F. Jacinto and Randy P. Urtula.
- Fairview, Quezon City: Department of Child Heath, FEU-NRMF, 2007.
- 13 pages: illustrations, tables; (in folder)
Includes appendices and bibliographical references.
Abstract: The Diarlex MB test, a commercial latex agglutination test for rotavirus and adenovirus, was compared with clinical symptomatology, stool analysis and stool culture. To correlate the physical examination findings, and laboratory findings with the results of stool latex agglutination for rotavirus and adenovirus (Diarlex MB by Orion Dianostica). To determine the diagnostic yeild of Diarlex MB. To compare the length of hospital stay of patients with a positive Diarlex test and those with negative Diarlex test. This is a prospective descriptive study which included all patients less than 19 year of age admitted for diarrhea at FEU-NRMF Medical Center between August 2006 and February 2007. Thirty three percent of the 93 patients admitted for diarrhea during the 7 month period were enrolled and included in the study from start to finish. Patients were mostly infants and toddlers, with about 80% belonging to the less than 5 year old age group and 50% are less than 2 year old who are the target population of the rotavirus vaccine. Of the 13 patients who were positive for rotavirus around69% are less than 2 years old. A pathogen was identified in 16 (051%) of the patients, of whom 14 were infected with a single agent -- namely rotavirus(42%), and Entamoeba histolytica in 1 patient. Co-infection was noted in 1 patient who turned out positive for both rotavirus and adenovirus. Escherichia coli were noted in the urine of one patient. There was no significant association between symptomatology and routine stool analysis, with the result of the latex agglutination test. Contrary to the published sensitivity of the test. this study only yields a 42% ability to identify those who truly have a viral etiology based on a gold stantard of a negative bacterial stool culture. The diagnostic yield, or the probability that htose who tested positive in the LA test (Diarlex MB) are presumably of viral etiology as evidenced by a negative bacterial stool culture testy, is 100%. Other validation parameters could not be ascertained because of the lack of cases with a positive stool culture. Diarlex MD was helpful in establishing the diagnosis of a diarrhea due to rotavirus and or adenovirus, however, a negative test does not necessarily mean a non-viral cause most especially if there are other co-morbid problems. A viral or specifically stool culture for rotavirus would have been the diagnostic modality of choice for better validation of the sensitivity and specificity of the LA test, however, non-availability in our institution and the high cost in other institution limited us from using it.