妊娠早期巨细胞病毒原发性感染的两种血清学筛查策略的比较

IF 4 3区 医学 Q2 VIROLOGY
Jacques Fourgeaud , Chiêu-Ân Nguyen , Tiffany Guilleminot , Yves Ville , Marianne Leruez-Ville
{"title":"妊娠早期巨细胞病毒原发性感染的两种血清学筛查策略的比较","authors":"Jacques Fourgeaud ,&nbsp;Chiêu-Ân Nguyen ,&nbsp;Tiffany Guilleminot ,&nbsp;Yves Ville ,&nbsp;Marianne Leruez-Ville","doi":"10.1016/j.jcv.2023.105614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>CMV serology screening in the first trimester pregnancy is based on IgG and IgM testing followed by IgG avidity in cases with positive IgM. However, the sensitivity of this strategy to diagnose maternal primary infection has been questioned. The objective of the study was to compare this strategy 1 with a strategy 2 consisting of running avidity test on all samples with positive IgG (ignoring IgM results) using fully automated current generation CMV IgG, IgM and IgG avidity assays.</p></div><div><h3>Population and methods</h3><p>1516 consecutive pregnant women between 12 and 14 weeks were screened in one maternity. Strategy 1 was done prospectively with LIAISON® CMV IgG II and LIAISON® CMV IgM II, followed by LIAISON® CMV IgG Avidity II and VIDAS® CMV IgG avidity II testing in cases with positive or equivocal IgM. Strategy 2 was done retrospectively on the same population and consisted of running avidity with the LIAISON® CMV IgG Avidity II in all samples with positive IgG.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The sensitivity to diagnose a confirmed or a possible maternal primary infection in the first trimester was 91.6 % and 83 % for strategy 1 and 2 respectively (<em>p</em> &gt; 0.99). Strategy 1 missed one possible primary infection and strategy 2 missed 2 confirmed primary infection. Inconclusive results happened in 0 and 0.7 % of samples with strategy 1 and 2 respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This study suggests that strategy 1 has better sensitivity and practicability than strategy 2. However, to achieve a good performance with strategy 1, using highly sensitive IgM assay is mandatory.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15517,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Virology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of two serological screening strategies for cytomegalovirus primary infection in the first trimester of pregnancy\",\"authors\":\"Jacques Fourgeaud ,&nbsp;Chiêu-Ân Nguyen ,&nbsp;Tiffany Guilleminot ,&nbsp;Yves Ville ,&nbsp;Marianne Leruez-Ville\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcv.2023.105614\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>CMV serology screening in the first trimester pregnancy is based on IgG and IgM testing followed by IgG avidity in cases with positive IgM. However, the sensitivity of this strategy to diagnose maternal primary infection has been questioned. The objective of the study was to compare this strategy 1 with a strategy 2 consisting of running avidity test on all samples with positive IgG (ignoring IgM results) using fully automated current generation CMV IgG, IgM and IgG avidity assays.</p></div><div><h3>Population and methods</h3><p>1516 consecutive pregnant women between 12 and 14 weeks were screened in one maternity. Strategy 1 was done prospectively with LIAISON® CMV IgG II and LIAISON® CMV IgM II, followed by LIAISON® CMV IgG Avidity II and VIDAS® CMV IgG avidity II testing in cases with positive or equivocal IgM. Strategy 2 was done retrospectively on the same population and consisted of running avidity with the LIAISON® CMV IgG Avidity II in all samples with positive IgG.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The sensitivity to diagnose a confirmed or a possible maternal primary infection in the first trimester was 91.6 % and 83 % for strategy 1 and 2 respectively (<em>p</em> &gt; 0.99). Strategy 1 missed one possible primary infection and strategy 2 missed 2 confirmed primary infection. Inconclusive results happened in 0 and 0.7 % of samples with strategy 1 and 2 respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This study suggests that strategy 1 has better sensitivity and practicability than strategy 2. However, to achieve a good performance with strategy 1, using highly sensitive IgM assay is mandatory.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Virology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Virology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653223002378\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VIROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Virology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653223002378","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VIROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在妊娠早期,巨细胞病毒的血清学筛查是基于IgG和IgM检测,然后在IgM阳性的情况下进行IgG抗体检测。然而,这种策略诊断母体原发感染的敏感性一直受到质疑。该研究的目的是比较该策略1与策略2,策略2使用全自动当前一代CMV IgG、IgM和IgG亲和度测定对所有IgG阳性样本(忽略IgM结果)进行亲和度检测。人群与方法:对1516名12至14周的连续孕妇进行筛查。策略1采用LIAISON®CMV IgG II和LIAISON®CMV IgM II进行前瞻性研究,然后在IgM阳性或模棱两可的病例中进行LIAISON®CMV IgG亲和度II和VIDAS®CMV IgG亲和度II检测。策略2在相同的人群中进行回顾性研究,包括在所有IgG阳性的样本中使用LIAISON®CMV IgG avidity II进行检测。结果策略1和策略2对妊娠早期确诊或可能的母体原发感染的诊断敏感性分别为91.6%和83% (p >0.99)。策略1遗漏了1例可能的原发感染,策略2遗漏了2例确诊的原发感染。在策略1和策略2的样本中,不确定的结果分别为0%和0.7%。结论策略1比策略2具有更好的敏感性和实用性。然而,为了实现策略1的良好性能,必须使用高灵敏度的IgM测定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of two serological screening strategies for cytomegalovirus primary infection in the first trimester of pregnancy

Introduction

CMV serology screening in the first trimester pregnancy is based on IgG and IgM testing followed by IgG avidity in cases with positive IgM. However, the sensitivity of this strategy to diagnose maternal primary infection has been questioned. The objective of the study was to compare this strategy 1 with a strategy 2 consisting of running avidity test on all samples with positive IgG (ignoring IgM results) using fully automated current generation CMV IgG, IgM and IgG avidity assays.

Population and methods

1516 consecutive pregnant women between 12 and 14 weeks were screened in one maternity. Strategy 1 was done prospectively with LIAISON® CMV IgG II and LIAISON® CMV IgM II, followed by LIAISON® CMV IgG Avidity II and VIDAS® CMV IgG avidity II testing in cases with positive or equivocal IgM. Strategy 2 was done retrospectively on the same population and consisted of running avidity with the LIAISON® CMV IgG Avidity II in all samples with positive IgG.

Results

The sensitivity to diagnose a confirmed or a possible maternal primary infection in the first trimester was 91.6 % and 83 % for strategy 1 and 2 respectively (p > 0.99). Strategy 1 missed one possible primary infection and strategy 2 missed 2 confirmed primary infection. Inconclusive results happened in 0 and 0.7 % of samples with strategy 1 and 2 respectively.

Conclusion

This study suggests that strategy 1 has better sensitivity and practicability than strategy 2. However, to achieve a good performance with strategy 1, using highly sensitive IgM assay is mandatory.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Virology
Journal of Clinical Virology 医学-病毒学
CiteScore
22.70
自引率
1.10%
发文量
149
审稿时长
24 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Virology, an esteemed international publication, serves as the official journal for both the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology and The European Society for Clinical Virology. Dedicated to advancing the understanding of human virology in clinical settings, the Journal of Clinical Virology focuses on disseminating research papers and reviews pertaining to the clinical aspects of virology. Its scope encompasses articles discussing diagnostic methodologies and virus-induced clinical conditions, with an emphasis on practicality and relevance to clinical practice. The journal publishes on topics that include: • new diagnostic technologies • nucleic acid amplification and serologic testing • targeted and metagenomic next-generation sequencing • emerging pandemic viral threats • respiratory viruses • transplant viruses • chronic viral infections • cancer-associated viruses • gastrointestinal viruses • central nervous system viruses • one health (excludes animal health)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信