Casopis lekaru ceskych · 2011
[Serological findings of Chlamydial pneumoniae in the Czech Republic--control group of patients examined in the study: Chlamydia pneumoniae in the aetiology of keratoconjunctivitis sicca].
Аннотация 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.
Hrubá Dana, Kodat Vladimír, Krásný Jan, Netuková Magdalena
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: One of the aims of IGA NS-10016 Project "Chlamydia pneumoniae in the etiology of keratoconjunctivitis sicca" was to evaluate the serologic results regarding chlamydia infections in patients affected by keratoconjunctivitis sicca, and to compare these findings with serology tests of the control group. Serologic examination comprised anti-LPS (genus specific) antibodies detection, Chlamydia pneumoniae and Chlamydia trachomatis species specific antibodies and antibodies against chlamydia heat-shock protein cHSP60 IgG.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The control group was formed by FNKV Ophthalmology Clinic patients who were coming for pre-operative investigation. At the time of laboratory sample acquisition or clinical investigation no acute ocular or general disease was found in these persons. During the last six moths, they had neither antibiotic therapy, nor therapy of respiratory tract chronic inflammation, asthma, joint or cardiovascular disease in their personal history. The control group consisted of 103 subjects.
CONCLUSIONS: We detected anamnestic antibodies against CP in 69% of subjects in the control group, in 31% of them IgA and/or IgM were also detected in our study. In 45% of them anti-cHSP60 IgG was positive even in subjects without symptoms of acute infection or inflammatory laboratory markers. It is obvious that this finding can be misleading during serologic investigation and interpretation, and it is always necessary to evaluate results in relation to the clinical condition.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The control group was formed by FNKV Ophthalmology Clinic patients who were coming for pre-operative investigation. At the time of laboratory sample acquisition or clinical investigation no acute ocular or general disease was found in these persons. During the last six moths, they had neither antibiotic therapy, nor therapy of respiratory tract chronic inflammation, asthma, joint or cardiovascular disease in their personal history. The control group consisted of 103 subjects.
CONCLUSIONS: We detected anamnestic antibodies against CP in 69% of subjects in the control group, in 31% of them IgA and/or IgM were also detected in our study. In 45% of them anti-cHSP60 IgG was positive even in subjects without symptoms of acute infection or inflammatory laboratory markers. It is obvious that this finding can be misleading during serologic investigation and interpretation, and it is always necessary to evaluate results in relation to the clinical condition.