4.7 Article

Clinical and Laboratory Diagnosis of Dengue Virus Infection

Journal

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Volume 215, Issue -, Pages S89-S95

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiw649

Keywords

dengue virus; dengue diagnosis; dengue disease; NS1 antigen capture; dengue serology

Funding

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
  2. Queensland State Government

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Infection with any of the 4 dengue virus serotypes results in a diverse range of symptoms, from mild undifferentiated fever to life-threatening hemorrhagic fever and shock. Given that dengue virus infection elicits such a broad range of clinical symptoms, early and accurate laboratory diagnosis is essential for appropriate patient management. Virus detection and serological conversion have been the main targets of diagnostic assessment for many years, however cross-reactivity of antibody responses among the flaviviruses has been a confounding issue in providing a differential diagnosis. Furthermore, there is no single, definitive diagnostic biomarker that is present across the entire period of patient presentation, particularly in those experiencing a secondary dengue infection. Nevertheless, the development and commercialization of point-of-care combination tests capable of detecting markers of infection present during different stages of infection (viral nonstructural protein 1 and immunoglobulin M) has greatly simplified laboratory- based dengue diagnosis. Despite these advances, significant challenges remain in the clinical management of dengue-infected patients, especially in the absence of reliable biomarkers that provide an effective prognostic indicator of severe disease progression. This review briefly summarizes some of the complexities and issues surrounding clinical dengue diagnosis and the laboratory diagnostic options currently available.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available