A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Disparities in detection of antibodies against hepatitis E virus in US blood donor samples using commercial assays. | LitMetric

Background: Reported hepatitis E virus (HEV) antibody assay performance characteristics are variable. Using a subset of surplus US blood donation samples, we compared assays for detecting anti-HEV immunoglobulin M (Ig)M and IgG or total anti-HEV antibodies.

Study Design And Methods: Samples from 5040 random blood donations, all HEV-RNA negative, collected primarily in the midwestern United States in 2015 were tested for anti-HEV IgM and IgG or total anti-HEV using assays manufactured by Diagnostic Systems, Wantai, and MP Biomedicals.

Results: Overall, the percentage of detection for anti-HEV IgG and total anti-HEV was 11.4%, and for anti-HEV IgM was 1.8%. Nine samples were reactive for anti-HEV IgM by all assays, giving a recent infection rate of 0.18%. Anti-HEV IgG/total anti-HEV detection rates increased with age. Interassay agreement was higher among the IgG anti-HEV/total anti-HEV assays (84%) than the IgM assays (22%). Regression analyses of signal-to-cutoff ratios from IgG/total antibody assay were heteroskedastic, indicating no constant variance among these assays, suggesting they may detect different epitopes or were affected by waning or less avid antibodies in the US donor population.

Conclusions: Although similar percentages of IgG anti-HEV/total anti-HEV detection were observed across the three commercial assays, each assay detected a unique sample subpopulation and was heteroskedastic when compared pairwise. Discordance was higher among anti-HEV IgM assays, but a recent HEV infection rate of at least 0.18% was estimated based on assay concordance.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5912996PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/trf.14553DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

anti-hev igm
16
anti-hev
13
igg total
12
total anti-hev
12
igm assays
12
assays
9
hepatitis virus
8
commercial assays
8
antibody assay
8
igm igg
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!