Journals / Flora İnfeksiyon Hastalıkları ve Klinik Mikrobiyoloji Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of ELISA and IFA Tests for Serological Diagnosis of Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) in 0-18 Year Age Group

0-18 Yaş Grubunda Epstein-Barr Virüsü (EBV)’nün Serolojik Tanısında ELISA ve IFA Testlerinin Karşılaştırılması

Pages
102–107
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

ELISA appears to be an alternative for IFA for the assessment of EBV VCA IgG serology.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: EBV infection is a common condition usually characterized by an asymptomatic course.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: A total of 100 children admitting to the outpatient clinics between March and June 2003 were included in this study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:ELISA appears to be an alternative for IFA for the assessment of EBV VCA IgG serology.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2003 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Introduction: EBV infection is a common condition usually characterized by an asymptomatic course. Its diagnosis is gaining importance due to the increasing number of immunosuppressive patients. This study aimed to investigate the sensitivity and specificity of ELISA test in detection of EBV VCA IgG when IFA is considered the reference standard. In addition, the agreement between the two tests was examined. Materials and Methods: A total of 100 children admitting to the outpatient clinics between March and June 2003 were included in this study. Sixty-five had sore throat, cervical lymphadenopathy and fever whereas 35 were children without these signs and symptoms who admitted for other reasons. Patients were evaluated for the presence of EBV VCA IgG. The specificity and sensitivity of ELISA method were estimated in reference to IFA, and the agreement between the two methods was examined. Results: EBV VCA IgG was positive in 83 (83%) cases and 74 (74%) cases using IFA and ELISA methods, respectively. In 10 cases, EBV VCA IgG was positive on IFA examination, whereas negative with ELISA. In one case with positive ELISA test, serology was negative with IFA examination. Thus, when IFA method was taken the reference, ELISA method had 88% and 94% sensitivity and specificity in detecting EBV VCA IgG, respectively. Conclusion: Findings of this study indicates that the two methods are in agreement for detecting EBV VCA IgG positivity. ELISA appears to be an alternative for IFA for the assessment of EBV VCA IgG serology.

Özet

Giriş: Dünyada yaygın bulunan ve genellikle asemptomatik seyreden Epstein-Barr virüsü (EBV) infeksiyonlarının tanısı, günümüzde sayıları artmakta olan immünsüpresif hastaların varlığı sebebiyle daha da önem kazanmıştır. Bu çalışmada, EBV VCA IgG ölçümü açısından IFA referans alınarak ELISA yönteminin duyarlılık ve özgüllüğünün araştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Materyal ve Metod: Mart 2003-Haziran 2003 tarihleri arasında hastanemiz polikliniklerine boğaz ağrısı, servikal lenfadenopati ve ateş şikayetleri ve bulgularıyla başvuran (n= 65) veya bu şikayet ve bulgulara sahip olmayıp diğer sebeplerle polikliniğe gelmiş olan (n= 35) 0-18 yaş aralığında 100 çocuk çalışma kapsamına alınmıştır. Hastalarda EBV VCA IgG varlığı değerlendirilmiştir. EBV VCA IgG parametresi açısından IFA referans alınarak ELISA yönteminin özgüllük ve duyarlılığı ile testlerin uyumluluğu araştırılmıştır. Bulgular: EBV VCA IgG, IFA yöntemiyle 83 (%83), ELISA yöntemiyle 74 (%74) olguda pozitif bulunmuştur. On olgu IFA ile pozitif bulunduğu halde ELISA ile negatif, bir olgu ise ELISA ile pozitif olduğu halde IFA ile negatif saptanmıştır. IFA yöntemi referans olarak alındığında; ELISA yönteminin duyarlılığı %88, özgüllüğü %94 olarak belirlenmiştir. Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın bulguları EBV VCA IgG açısından her iki yöntemin birbiriyle uyumlu olduğuna işaret etmektedir. ELISA, EBV VCA IgG testi için IFA yerine kullanılabilecek uygun bir alternatif olarak görünmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜMÜŞER, F. (2018). Comparison of ELISA and IFA Tests for Serological Diagnosis of Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) in 0-18 Year Age Group. Flora İnfeksiyon Hastalıkları ve Klinik Mikrobiyoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 3, 102–107. https://ajindex.com/articles/224453

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Ağaçfidan A, Bozacı M, Badur S. Epstein-Barr virusu infeksiyonlarının tanısında kullanılan serolojik yöntemlerin değerlendirilmesi. Klimik Derg 1991;3:133-5.
  2. Linderholm M, Boman J, Juto P, Linde A. Comparative evaluation of nine kits for rapid diagnosis of infectious mononucleosis and Epstein-Barr virus-specific serology. J Clin Microbiol 1994;32:259-61. Hoagland RJ. Infectious mononucleosis. Prim Care 1975;2:295-307. Ebell MH. Epstein-Barr virus infectious mononucleosis. Am Fam Physician 2004;70:1279-87.
  3. Gallo D, Walen KH, Riggs JL. Improved immunofluorescence antigens for detection of immunoglobulin M antibodies to Epstein-Barr viral capsid antigen and antibodies to Epstein-Barr virus nuclear antigen. J Clin Microbiol 1982;15:243- 8. Garnlund DJ, Levine PH, Fuccillo DA. Enzyme immunoassay for detection of antibody to Epstein-Barr virus-specific early antigen. J Clin Microbiol 1979;10:747-51.
  4. Okano M, Thiele GM, Davis JR, Grierson HL, Purtilo DT. Epstein-Barr virus and human diseases: recent advances in diagnosis. Clin Microbiol Rev 1988;1:300-12.
  5. Nystad TW, Myrmel H. Prevalence of primary versus reactivated Epstein-Barr virus infection in patients with VCA IgG-, VCA IgM- and EBNA-1-antibodies and suspected infectious mononucleosis. J Clin Virol 2007;38:292-7.
  6. Gartner BC, Hess RD, Bandt D, Kruse A, Rethwilm A, Roemer K, et al. Evaluation of four commercially available Epstein-Barr virus enzyme immunoassays with an immunofluorescence assay as the reference method. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2003;10:78-82.
  7. Ozcay F, Arslan H, Bilezikci B, Sevmis S, Moray G, Haberal M. The role of valacyclovir on Epstein-Barr virus viral loads in pediatric liver transplantation patients. Transplant Proc 2009;41:2878-80.
  8. Niller HH, Bauer G. Epstein-Barr virus: clinical diagnostics. Methods Mol Biol 2017;1532:33-55.
  9. Sumaya CV, Ench Y. Epstein-Barr virus infectious mononucleosis in children. II. Heterophil antibody and viral-specific responses. Pediatrics 1985;75:1011-9. Hess RD. Routine Epstein-Barr virus diagnostics from the laboratory perspective: still challenging after 35 years. J Clin Microbiol 2004;42:3381-7.
  10. Sener AG, Afsar I, Pinar E. Evaluation of Epstein-Barr virus antibodies, anti-VCA avidity by immunofluorescence and immunoblot assays for assessment of Epstein-Barr virus immunologic state. J Virol Methods 2009;159:300-2.
  11. Altuglu I, Aksoy A, Zeytinoglu A, Orman M. Evaluation of immunoblot-based assay for detecting Epstein-Barr virus viral capsid antibodies. Mikrobiyol Bu