4.7 Article

Evaluation of the efficiency of dried blood spot-based measurement of hepatitis B and hepatitis C virus seromarkers

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-60703-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [H28-kansei-ippan-001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although hepatitis B (HBV) and C (HCV) virus infections are still global health issues, measuring sero-markers by standard venipuncture is challenging in areas limited with the adequate human resources and basic infrastructure. This study aimed to inform the usefulness of dried blood spot (DBS) sampling technique for epidemiological study of HBV and HCV in the resources limited areas. We compared specimen recovery rate expressed as analytical sensitivity ratio of HBsAg, HBcAb and anti-HCV between serum specimens and DBS samples (HemaSpot vs Whatman903). Sensitivity ratio was calculated as the ratio of the measured value from DBS to the measured value from serum. Then both the qualitative and quantitative comparisons of HBsAg detection by DBS were done using Cambodian samples. HBsAg, HBcAb and anti-HCV sensitivity ratios for the highest sample dilution (8-fold) were 31.2:1, 38.9:1 and 32.0:1 for Whatman903 card and 17.6:1, 23.5:1 and 26.3:1 for HemaSpot respectively. Detection efficacy of HemaSpot (80%) was not inferior to Whatman903 (60%) after 1 month storage, and no significant difference in any hepatitis virus sero-markers was observed in HemaSpot-spotted patient samples stored for 2 weeks at -25 degrees C and 29 degrees C. All reference HemaSpot-spotted 400 HBsAg sero-negative samples showed negative. Sensitivity and specificity of HBsAg in HemaSpot were 92.3% and 100%. The recovery expressed as analytical sensitivity ratio of HBsAg, HBcAb and anti-HCV of HemaSpot specimen were not inferior to Whatman903. Therefore, DBS with its usefulness proved as an acceptable tool for large epidemiological study of HBV and HCV in resources limited remote area.

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