Why the study?
How does polymerase chain reaction compare to traditional serology for diagnosing hepatitis E virus in the West of Scotland?
How does polymerase chain reaction compare to traditional serology for diagnosing hepatitis E virus in the West of Scotland?
PCR is valuable for reliably diagnosing hepatitis E virus, while serology remains useful for resolved infections, highlighting potential undiagnosed endogenous transmission in Scotland.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports dual PCR-serology testing for HEV diagnosis in Scotland; leaves open the prevalence and implications of endogenous transmission.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hepatitis E virus is traditionally regarded as a virus of the developing world and is emerging as a leading cause of non-A/B/C hepatitis. We wished to investigate locally acquired transmission of hepatitis E in the West of Scotland and compare our use of traditional serology versus polymerase chain reaction since the introduction of polymerase chain reaction in 2007. METHODS: Clinical details provided on specimens of blood positive for hepatitis E virus by serology or polymerase chain reaction were collated and analysed. RESULTS: Since 2007, 30 samples were hepatitis E virus-positive by serology or polymerase chain reaction. Polymerase chain reaction positivity was generally associated with positive serology although four samples were polymerase chain reaction-negative and strongly positive by serology. Interestingly, one-quarter of cases were likely to represent endogenous transmission of the infection. CONCLUSIONS: Polymerase chain reaction is valuable in reliably diagnosing hepatitis E virus. However, serology is valuable for diagnosing resolved infection. There may be a high level of undiagnosed locally acquired hepatitis E virus in Scotland.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deshpande et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: