Search

Introduction:Influenza virus infections cause significant morbidity, and the unique ability of these viruses to undergo antigenic drift and shift means that it is critical for current laboratory assays to keep pace with these changes for accurate diagnosis. New subtypes have the potential to evolve into pandemics hence accurate virus subtyping is also essential.Areas covered:In this article, the authors review the current techniques available to detect influenza virus.Expert opinion:The biggest gains in improving on influenza diagnostics may lie in reappraising our current approach and optimizing all existing steps in influenza detection: pre-analytical, analytical, post-analytical. In addition, we must foster close collaboration between governments, surveillance networks and frontline diagnostic laboratories, and utilize advances in information technology to facilitate these interactions and to disseminate crucial information.

Despite concerns about vancomycin use in the treatment of multidrug-resistant Gram positives, evidence for better therapeutic outcomes with alternative antibiotics is lacking. This review focuses on recent advances.

Monitoring of serum voriconazole concentrations has been proposed to optimize therapeutic effect and minimize toxicity. However, little is known about the clinical use of voriconazole therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) by treating physicians. Four hundred seventy-eight episodes corresponding with 161 adult patients (mean three TDM episodes per patient; range 1-31, at a mean interval 43.6 days [range 1-266] between repetitions) performed at a state reference laboratory in Australia during a 30-month period were reviewed. Information about voriconazole dose was provided on only nine (1.9%) request forms. Timing of voriconazole TDM in relation to the previous dose was stated in 189 (39%) episodes and corresponded with peak measurements in 16; interval measurements (taken on average 3.3 [range 3-10.5] hours from the preceding dose) in 15; and trough measurements in 158 episodes. Of the 158 trough concentration measurements, only 66 (42%) were between 1 and 5.5 mg/L, the suggested therapeutic range. Similarly, only 33% (98 of 298) of all the random TDM episodes achieved voriconazole concentrations greater than 2.05 mg/L, previously associated with favorable outcomes. Compared with trough TDM, random episodes were significantly more likely to result in undetectable (less than 0.1 mg/L) concentrations (45 of 298 [15.1%] versus 12 of 158 [7.6%]; P= 0.021, odds ratio 2.16, 95% confidence interval: 1.11-4.22). Among patients with multiple TDM episodes, there was no correlation between the initial and final trough or between the initial and final random concentrations. Only 44% (eight of 18) of patients with multiple trough TDM had final concentration within 1 to 5.5 mg/L; and only 26% (15 of 58) of patients with multiple random TDM had final concentration greater than 2.05 mg/L. Adoption of consistent and clear guidelines on voriconazole TDM use and education of physicians ordering the test is required because the majority of testing performed was inappropriate and prone to suboptimal interpretation.