4.6 Article

Estimated numbers and prevalence of PI*S and PI*Z alleles of alpha-antitrypsin deficiency in European countries

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 77-84

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.06.00062305

关键词

alpha(1)-antitrypsin deficiency; alpha(1)-protease inhibitor; Europe; genetic epidemiology; protease inhibitor phenotypes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current study focuses on developing estimates of the numbers of individuals carrying the two most common deficiency alleles, PI*S and PI*Z, for alpha(1)-antitrypsin deficiency D) in Europe. Criteria for selection of epidemiological studies were: 1) AT phencityping performed by isoelectrofocusing or antigen-anti body crossed electrophoresis; 2) rejection of screening studies; 12) statistical precision factor score of >= 5 for Southwest, Western and Northern Europe, >= 4 for Central Europe, >= 3 for Eastern Europe; and 4) samples representative of the general population. A total of 75,390 individuals were selected from 21 European countries (one each from Austria, Belgium, Latvia, Hungary, Serbia-Montenegro, Sweden and Switzerland; two each from Denmark, Estonia and Lithuania; three each from Portugal and the UK; four each from Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Spain; five each from Russia and Germany; six from Poland; eight from Italy; and nine from France). The total AT-D populations of a particular phenotype in the countries selected were: 124,594 ZZ; 560,515 SZ; 16,323,226 MZ; 630,401 SS; and 36,716,819 MS. The largest number of ZZ (5,000-15,000) were in Italy, Spain, Germany, France, the UK, Latvia, Sweden and Denmark, followed by Belgium, Portugal, Serbia-Montenegro, Russia, The Netherlands, Norway and Austria (1,000-2,000), with <1,000 in each of the remaining countries. A remarkable lack in number of reliable epidemiological studies and marked differences among these European countries and regions within a given country was also found.

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

4.6
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