Zhonghua shi yan he lin chuang bing du xue za zhi = Zhonghua shiyan he linchuang bingduxue zazhi = Chinese journal of experimental and clinical virology · 2005
[Serological antibodies comparison of a hepatitis E outbreak].
Сравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tan Chun-rong, Bao Zhong-ying, Sun Huan-ying, Hu Mei, Chen Yan, Chen Min, Zhang Man
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the serological characters of an outbreak of hepatitis E and evaluate sensitivity and specificity of anti-HEV E2-IgM.
METHODS: The sera collected from the employees of an outbreak unit were detected for anti-HEV E2-IgM and IgG, and the serum samples from a neighboring department were used as control. The results detected with anti-HEV E2-IgM, IgG and Genelab anti-HEV IgM, IgG in some samples were compared.
RESULTS: The positive rate of anti-HEV E2-IgM in the control group was 0.11%. The results between the positive and the negative samples can be distinguished easily. The specificity of anti-HEV E2-IgM is about 99.89%. The positive rate of anti-HEV E2-IgM in outbreak stricken population was 8.66%, significantly higher than that in the control group (P < 0.001). The results from HEV patients' serial samples in the outbreak unit showed that the anti-HEV E2-IgM titer was high 30-60 days after the infected and then declined clearly. The positivity seemed unrelated to neither sex nor age. Among the 115 positive to anti-HEV E2-IgM, 27 were negative to Genelab anti-HEV IgG, the fact indicated a rather high risk of misdiagnosis of about 23.48%. In the 179 randomized samples of the control group, the positive rate of Genelabs anti-HEV IgG was about 11.17%. In 110 samples for the positive anti-HEV E2-IgM, the positive ratio of Genelabs anti-HEV IgG was about 76.36%, and that of Genelabs anti-HEV IgM only 69.09%. There were 16 samples negative for both Genelabs anti-HEV IgG and IgM. The ratio of the difference between the Genelabs anti-HEV IgG and IgM was about 25.45%.
CONCLUSION: The specificity of anti-HEV E2-IgM was about 99%, and false positive rate was low. The sensitivity of anti-HEV E2-IgM in acute hepatitis E infection was 25%-30% higher than that of Genelabs anti-HEV IgM,IgG. The infected persons in the outbreak unit can be preferably distinguished from the non-infected persons by anti-HEV E2-IgM. Anti-HEV E2-IgM can image the characters of the outbreak of HEV and played a great role in the control of outbreak and in the early diagnosis for hepatitis E.
METHODS: The sera collected from the employees of an outbreak unit were detected for anti-HEV E2-IgM and IgG, and the serum samples from a neighboring department were used as control. The results detected with anti-HEV E2-IgM, IgG and Genelab anti-HEV IgM, IgG in some samples were compared.
RESULTS: The positive rate of anti-HEV E2-IgM in the control group was 0.11%. The results between the positive and the negative samples can be distinguished easily. The specificity of anti-HEV E2-IgM is about 99.89%. The positive rate of anti-HEV E2-IgM in outbreak stricken population was 8.66%, significantly higher than that in the control group (P < 0.001). The results from HEV patients' serial samples in the outbreak unit showed that the anti-HEV E2-IgM titer was high 30-60 days after the infected and then declined clearly. The positivity seemed unrelated to neither sex nor age. Among the 115 positive to anti-HEV E2-IgM, 27 were negative to Genelab anti-HEV IgG, the fact indicated a rather high risk of misdiagnosis of about 23.48%. In the 179 randomized samples of the control group, the positive rate of Genelabs anti-HEV IgG was about 11.17%. In 110 samples for the positive anti-HEV E2-IgM, the positive ratio of Genelabs anti-HEV IgG was about 76.36%, and that of Genelabs anti-HEV IgM only 69.09%. There were 16 samples negative for both Genelabs anti-HEV IgG and IgM. The ratio of the difference between the Genelabs anti-HEV IgG and IgM was about 25.45%.
CONCLUSION: The specificity of anti-HEV E2-IgM was about 99%, and false positive rate was low. The sensitivity of anti-HEV E2-IgM in acute hepatitis E infection was 25%-30% higher than that of Genelabs anti-HEV IgM,IgG. The infected persons in the outbreak unit can be preferably distinguished from the non-infected persons by anti-HEV E2-IgM. Anti-HEV E2-IgM can image the characters of the outbreak of HEV and played a great role in the control of outbreak and in the early diagnosis for hepatitis E.