4.7 Article

Oral fluid for the serological and molecular diagnosis of measles

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 14, 期 11, 页码 E991-E997

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2010.06.009

关键词

Oral fluid; Measles; Serological diagnosis; Molecular diagnosis

资金

  1. Directorate-General for Primary Health Care and Crisis Management (DG2) of the Federal Public Service Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment, Brussels, Belgium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Since measles presents mostly in children, a non-invasive sample collection technique such as oral fluid sampling would be very useful in the early detection of measles RNA and antibodies. The aim of this study was to validate the detection of anti-measles IgM and measles virus RNA in oral fluid and to make a comparison with the gold standard methods of ELISA using serum (Enzygnost (R) anti-Measles IgM) and in-house nested reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using nasopharyngeal secretions. Methods: Three samples each from 73 measles-positive and 44 measles-negative subjects (serum, oral fluid, and nasopharyngeal secretions) were analyzed. Results: The anti-measles IgM ELISA (MicroImmune) on oral fluid was validated against the IgM ELISA (Siemens) for serum and this resulted in a sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 100%. A molecular nested RT-PCR using oral fluid was validated against the standard assay on nasopharyngeal secretions and gave a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 100%. Conclusions: The results confirm that both serological and molecular oral fluid assays are suitable for routine use. The use of oral fluid samples for the detection of measles virus may encourage patients, general practitioners, and pediatricians to participate in the Belgian measles surveillance system and other epidemiological studies in the framework of the World Health Organization elimination program. (C) 2010 International Society for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据