Detection of enterovirus RNA in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) using NucliSens EasyQ Enterovirus assay

Abstract

Rapid detection of enterovirus (EV) infections is essential in the management of aseptic meningitis. Molecular approaches have opened the way to such rapid, but also specific and sensitive, diagnostic tests. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the CE marked NucliSens EasyQ Enterovirus assay with an in-house two-step RT-PCR assay using cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and throat swab samples. In addition, specificity was tested with clinical isolates positive for viruses with clinical importance in CSF samples. For nucleic acid extraction, the NucliSens miniMAG and NucliSens magnetic extraction reagents were used. Subsequently real-time nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA) RNA amplification was performed using NucliSens EasyQ basic kit reagents and NucliSens EasyQ Enterovirus reagents. An EV-specific internal homologous control (IC) RNA was used to monitor the entire NucliSens EasyQ procedure at the individual sample level. No IC but an external inhibition control was available for the RT-PCR method. For the NucliSens EasyQ procedure, amplification and real-time detection reactions were carried out in the NucliSens EasyQ analyzer. The real-time NASBA enterovirus detection was based on NASBA amplification and real-time molecular beacon technology. Data were analyzed using the manufacturer's software on the NucliSens EasyQ analyzer. For the in-house assay, RT-PCR amplicons were detected using agarose gel analysis. The analysis of clinical samples positive for HSV-1, HSV-2, adenovirus, CMV, VZV, mumps and rhinovirus were all negative by NucliSens EasyQ Enterovirus assay. Three rhinovirus samples were, however, strongly positive in RT-PCR. A total of 141 clinical samples were retrospectively tested, including 126 cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples and 15 throat swabs. The 91 CSF samples were negative by both methods, 31 CSF samples and 14 throat swab samples were positive by both methods. The four CSF samples were positive by RT-PCR only. One throat swab sample was negative in NucliSens EasyQ but positive in RT-PCR. The sensitivity and specificity of both methods seem to be more or less comparable. However, the in-house RT-PCR assay appears to amplify some rhinovirus strains and should therefore not be used for throat swab samples. NucliSens EasyQ Enterovirus assay gave more invalid results than the in-house RT-PCR, which is obvious taken into account the difference in quality control between the CE marked NucliSens EasyQ Enterovirus assay and the in-house enterovirus assay. The NucliSens EasyQ procedure can be completed within 5h versus 9.5h for the RT-PCR. NucliSens EasyQ Enterovirus assay showed to be a standardized, rapid, specific, sensitive and reliable procedure for the detection of enterovirus RNA.