4.6 Article

Higher cut-off index value of immunoglobulin M antibody to hepatitis B core antigen in Taiwanese patients with hepatitis B

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 5, Pages 859-862

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2006.04280.x

Keywords

acute hepatitis; chronic hepatitis; genotype; hepatitis B virus; microparticle enzyme immunoassay

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The cut-off index value of immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc; AxSYM CORE-M, Abbott) for diagnosing acute hepatitis B is 1.2. A high false-positive rate of IgM anti-HBc was observed in acute flare-ups of chronic hepatitis B in Taiwanese patients. Thus the purpose of the present paper was to study the optimal index value of IgM anti-HBc in Taiwanese subjects. Methods:The peak index values of 42 IgM anti-HBc-positive patients were collected. There were 20 acute hepatitis B patients and 22 patients with chronic hepatitis B with acute flare. The biochemical, virological, and serological data were obtained. Results:There were significant differences in mean age (36 vs 47 years, P = 0.01), serum alanine aminotransferase level (2042 U/L vs 1193 U/L, P = 0.02) and peak index value of IgM anti-HBc (2.9 vs 1.5, P < 0.01) between patients with acute hepatitis B and those with acute flare of chronic hepatitis B. Eleven (50%) of 22 patients with chronic hepatitis B with acute flare had index value of > 1.2. The optimal cut-off index value to differentiate acute hepatitis B from chronic hepatitis B with acute flare was 2.4-2.5, with a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 90%. Conclusions:The cut-off index value of IgM anti-HBc to differentiate acute hepatitis B from chronic hepatitis B with acute flare among Taiwanese patients should be set at 2.4-2.5 instead of 0.8-1.2.(c) 2006 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available