1750-2659/asset/irv_left.gif?v=1&s=b506e5ddb381561b16c70475df08113ab590d9b0)
1750-2659/asset/irv_right.gif?v=1&s=c599870cf875ed04311f3ac8c8c9cc312a1701df)
Original Article
Serological diagnosis of avian influenza in poultry: is the haemagglutination inhibition test really the ‘gold standard’?
Article first published online: 14 JUN 2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2012.00391.x
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Additional Information
How to Cite
Comin, A., Toft, N., Stegeman, A., Klinkenberg, D. and Marangon, S. (2013), Serological diagnosis of avian influenza in poultry: is the haemagglutination inhibition test really the ‘gold standard’?. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses, 7: 257–264. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2012.00391.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 17 APR 2013
- Article first published online: 14 JUN 2012
- Accepted 5 May 2012. Published Online 14 June 2012.
Keywords:
- Avian influenza;
- diagnostic test evaluation;
- haemagglutination inhibition test;
- latent class analysis;
- serological tests
Background The serological diagnosis of avian influenza (AI) can be performed using different methods, yet the haemagglutination inhibition (HI) test is considered the ‘gold standard’ for AI antibody subtyping. Although alternative diagnostic assays have been developed, in most cases, their accuracy has been evaluated in comparison with HI test results, whose performance for poultry has not been properly evaluated.
Objective The objective of this study was to estimate the diagnostic sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of the HI test and six other diagnostic assays for the detection of AI antibodies without assuming a gold standard.
Methods We applied a Bayesian version of latent class analysis to compare the results of multiple tests from different study settings reported in the literature.
Results The results showed that the HI test has nearly perfect accuracy (i.e. 98·8% sensitivity and 99·5% specificity). It performed well in both chickens and turkeys and yet was less accurate in experimentally infected poultry, compared to naturally infected. Blocking ELISA and the indirect immunofluorescence assay also performed very well.
Conclusions Given its very high Se and Sp, the HI test may be effectively considered a gold standard. In the framework of LPAI surveillance, where large numbers of samples have to be processed, the blocking ELISA could be a valid alternative to the HI test, in that it is almost as sensitive and specific as the HI test yet quicker and easier to automate.