Dengue is a mosquito-borne arboviral disease of grave public health concern worldwide. Early diagnosis and treatment is required to reduce morbidity & mortality from complications caused by secondary dengue infection. According to WHO, the three main diagnostic modalities for the diagnosis of dengue infection are cultivation and identification of viruses, molecular methods, and serology. Whereas virus cultivation is labour intensive and available only in reference laboratories, molecular methods require expensive infrastructure & expertise. Serology on the other hand not only less tedious but is also able to differentiate between primary and secondary dengue. This study was undertaken to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of rapid immunochromatographic assay in the diagnosis of dengue infection as compared to ELISA. The study was conducted in the serology section of the Microbiology laboratory, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences, Amritsar. Blood samples from 429 patients with clinical suspicion of dengue virus infection were received in the lab from August 2020 to December 2020. All samples were subjected to rapid ICT and ELISA to detect NS1 Ag and IgM antibodies. The majority number of cases were observed in the age group of 31 to 40 years while the gender-wise ratio was 1.43:1 showing male preponderance. Out of 429 samples tested, 156 were reactive for either NS1 antigen or IgM antibodies by the ELISA method. Results of rapid ICT for NS1Ag and results of NS1Ag by ELISA were analyzed and compared. A sensitivity of 81.25% was noted and specificity of 100%. IgM detection by rapid ICT in comparison to IgM ELISA shows a sensitivity of 82.14% and specificity of 100%. Rapid ICT kits performed at par with the ELISA. Rapid immunochromatographic assays are important diagnostic tools in the identification of dengue and early treatment of dengue patients is possible, reducing mortality significantly.
Dengue, Rapid Immunochromatographic test, ELISA
Share This Article
© The Author(s) 2022. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License which permits unrestricted use, sharing, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.