Site Loader
Rock Street, San Francisco

Infectious glandular fever is a womb-to-tomb clinical disease, chiefly associated with the Epstein-Barr virus. In the USA, there is an estimated 500 instances per 100,000 persons diagnosed each twelvemonth ( 1,2 ) . Common symptoms include sore pharynx, weariness, febrility and lymphadenopathy. Although seldom fatal, IM can take to other serious complications including splenetic rupture and external respiration troubles ( 2 ) .

In the hematology research lab at Victoria Hospital in Fife, the current pattern for IM diagnosing is to execute a full blood count ( FBC ) and blood movie ( BF ) followed by a monospot ( heterophile antigen trial ) . Over recent months, it has been noticed that the figure of petitions for monospots has risen although the figure of positive consequences remains low.

Due to laboratory fiscal restraints and the possible debut of vetting standards for monospot testing, an audit ( Appendix A ) was performed to find the figure of monospots performed in one month, along with the clinical inside informations and consequences. Findingss showed that merely 10 of the 99 petitions had a positive monospot trial. In add-on, it was highlighted that 70 % of the petitions did non hold any of the typical FBC and BF findings associated with IM, such as lymphocytosis and the presence of untypical lymph cells severally. Although the audit showed that a big per centum of monospot trials are requested for the inappropriate grounds, for illustration as portion of a unease screen with no other important symptoms, the negative findings may be associated with the restrictions of the monospot instead than due to being requested unnecessarily.

The vetting standards will include the FBC and BF findings and depending upon the consequences, the monospot trial may non be performed ( Figure 1 ) . However, monospots, every bit good as FBC and BF ‘s, may give false negative consequences in a one-fourth of instances with early disease ( 1st hebdomad of symptoms ) ( 3 ) and in the bulk of kids less than 4 old ages old. Additionally, 10-20 % of IM infected grownups fail to bring forth IM heterophile antibodies, which would besides take to a negative monospot trial ( Appendix B ) . These instances are referred to as heterophile negative EBV induced IM. Furthermore, monospot trials are unable to separate between primary disease, reactivated IM and relentless antibody presence, as heterophile antibodies can prevail for many old ages at low degrees, along with a normal FBC and BF ( 1,2,4 ) . It is besides deserving observing that other serious conditions including human immunodeficiency, CMV, infection with Toxoplasma gondii and some malignances may show with symptoms of IM and bring forth positive monospots ( false positive ) ( 3, Appendix B )

Therefore, it is deserving sing utilizing other IM diagnostic methods such as EBV serological surveies, including viral mirid bug antigen ( VCA ) trials ( EBV Anti-VCA IgM and IgG-antibodies ) and IgG-antibodies to EBV atomic antigen 1 ( EBNA-1 ) , for an definite diagnosing of IM, along with the stage of disease ( 1,3,4 ) ( Table 1 ) .

Figure 1 – Potential Vetting Criteria for IM Testing and Diagnosis ( adapted from 3 )

* It is assumed that a monospot trial would give a non-specific consequence

Table 1 – EBV Serological Trials and their Association with IM ( adapted from 2 )

EBV Serological Test

Association with IM

EBV Anti-VCA IgM-antibodies

Detected in early disease, vanishing within 4-8 hebdomads. Diagnostic of primary infection.

EBV Anti-VCA IgG-antibodies

Detected in early disease and stay in system for life. Diagnostic of primary and chronic infection.

IgG-antibodies to EBNA-1

Detected several hebdomads after showing symptoms. Diagnostic of past infection.

Question

Population: Persons with suspected EBV induced IM

Intervention: EBV serological surveies

Comparison: Monospot

Result: Valid replacing trial ( improved sensitiveness and specificity by

set uping presence of infection and phase of disease at diagnosing )

Make EBV serological surveies provide a valid replacing for the monospot trial and better sensitiveness and specificity of diagnosing in patients with suspected EBV induced IM?

Search Scheme

Potential words / phrases to utilize for hunt:

Infectious glandular fever

Epstein-Barr virus

Monospot

Heterophile antigen trial

EBV serology

Antibod* ( antibody, antibodies )

Viral mirid bug antigen trial ( VCA )

EBV atomic antigen 1 ( EBNA-1 )

Compared

Diagnosis

The hunt scheme began by working through each database, utilizing the hunt footings deemed most of import, before contracting them down ( where required ) utilizing filters or altering hunt words. Table 2 demonstrates the order of resources used and search footings.

Table 2 – Search Schemes for placing the relevant literature

Resource ( database )

Search Footings **

Filters Applied

Entire Number of Hits

Irrelevant Hits

Relevant Hits

Bandolier

Infectious glandular fever

None

1

1

0

Epstein-Barr virus

None

1

1

0

BestBETs

Infectious glandular fever

None

0

0

0

Epstein-Barr virus

None

0

0

0

Trip

Infectious glandular fever

None

1389

N/A

N/A

Infectious glandular fever and monospot

None

40

N/A

N/A

Infectious glandular fever and monospot and EBV serology

None

16

N/A

N/A

Infectious glandular fever and monospot and EBV serology

Evidence based outlines

1

0

1

NHS Evidence

Infectious glandular fever

None

201

N/A

N/A

Infectious glandular fever and monospot

None

0

0

0

Infectious glandular fever and diagnosing

None

146

N/A

N/A

Infectious glandular fever and diagnosing

Diagnosis

35

N/A

N/A

Infectious glandular fever and diagnosing and EBV serology

Diagnosis

3

3

0

Infectious glandular fever and diagnosing and EBV serology

Removed “ diagnosing ” filter

9

0

1

Epstein-Barr virus and diagnosing and EBV serology

None

13

13

0

Cochrane

Infectious glandular fever

None

3

3

0

Epstein-Barr virus

None

1

1

0

Infectious glandular fever and diagnosing

None

7

5

2

PubMed

Infectious glandular fever

None

7888

N/A

N/A

Infectious glandular fever and EBV serology

None

965

N/A

N/A

Infectious glandular fever and EBV serology and comparing

None

31

N/A

N/A

Infectious glandular fever and EBV serology and heterophile

None

85

N/A

N/A

Infectious glandular fever and EBV serology and heterophile

Worlds

81

N/A

N/A

Infectious glandular fever and EBV serology and heterophile and diagnosing

Worlds

69

N/A

N/A

Infectious glandular fever and EBV serology and heterophile and diagnosing and comparing

Worlds

4

3

1

Infectious glandular fever and EBV serology and monospot

Worlds

14

11

3

EBNA-1 and viral mirid bug antibody and heterophile

Worlds

7

4

3

Antibod* and infective glandular fever

N/A

2144

N/A

N/A

Antibod* and infective glandular fever and diagnosing

N/A

1475

N/A

N/A

Antibod* and infective glandular fever and diagnosing

Worlds

1395

N/A

N/A

Antibod* and infective glandular fever and diagnosing

Worlds and 5 old ages

72

N/A

N/A

Antibod* and infective glandular fever and diagnosing and compared

Worlds and 5 old ages

16

15

1

** Search footings have been entered into tabular array in order they were input into each database. N/A = non applicable ( used in irrelevant/relevant column when hunt hit is excessively high )

Consequences of Search

Writer

Date and Country

Title of Paper

Beginning of Evidence

Lattimore K A

2001, USA

Accurate diagnosing of EBV mono with rapid heterophile latex agglutination depends on the trial used

Trip – University of Michigan Department of Pediatrics. Evidence -based paediatricss website

Health protection bureau ( Standards unit, Microbiology services divison )

2012, UK

UK criterions for microbiology probes. Epstein-Barr virus serology

NHS Evidence – Virology ( V26, 4 )

Andersson A, Vetter V, Kreutzer L and Bauer G

1994

Eagernesss of IgG directed against viral mirid bug antigen or early antigen: utile markers for important Epstein-Barr virus serology

Cochrane – Journal of medical virology

Tamaro G, Donato M, Princi T and Parco S

2009, Italy

Correlation between the immunological status and the consequences of immunoenzymatic trials in naming infective glandular fever

Cochrane – Acta bio-medica: Atenei Parmensis

Siennicka J and TrzciA„ska A

2007, Poland

Laboratory diagnosing of Epstein-Barr virus infection

PubMed – Med Dosw Mikrobiol

Vouloumanou E K, Rafailidis P I and Falagas M E

2012, Greece

Current diagnosing and direction of infective glandular fever

PubMed – Current Opinion Hematololgy

Papesch M and Watkins R

2001, UK

Epstein-Barr virus infective glandular fever

PubMed – Clinical Otolaryngology and Allied Sciences

SeviA‡ S

1997, Croatia

Serologic diagnosing of acute infective glandular fever

PubMed – med Pregl

Klutts J S, Ford B A, Perez N R and Gronowski A M

2009, USA

Evidence-based attack for reading of Epstein-Barr virus serological forms

PubMed – Journal of Clinical Microbiology

De Paschale M, Agrappi C, Manco M T, Mirri P, Vigano E F and Clerici P

2009, Italy

Seroepidemiology of EBV and reading of the “ stray VCA IgG ” form

PubMed – Journal of Medical Virology

Nystad T W and Myrmel H

2007, Norway

Prevalence of primary versus reactivated Epstein-Barr virus infection in patients with VCA IgG- , VCA IgM- and EBNA-1-antibodies and suspected infective glandular fever

PubMed – Journal of Clinical Virology

Llor C, Hernandez M, Hernandez S, Martinez T and Gomez F F

2012, Spain

Cogency of a point-of-care based on heterophile antibody sensing for the diagnosing of infective glandular fever in primary attention.

PubMed – European Journal of General Practice

Contemplation

I researched assorted databases, looking for relevant literature to assist reply my inquiry on whether EBV serological surveies are a valid replacing for the monospot trial. I found my inquiry to be both relevant to my workplace and specific plenty to obtain adequate literature to assist come to a generalized decision.

I prepared before get downing my hunt by making background reading around my inquiry which gave me a good penetration to the general countries I need to concentrate on, nevertheless, as I had no old experience of this type of database searching, I found it rather hard to cognize which cardinal words to utilize. I wrote a list of relevant words in order of importance to assist maintain me on the right path.

In the beginning, I found this undertaking rather dashing as my hunts produced “ hits ” with either an highly high figure ( 7000 in PubMed ) or a really low figure ( 0 in BestBETs ) and I found it hard to cognize when to use filters, add extra hunt footings or usage wildcards.

I performed rather a batch of single hunts, merely altering one word or filter at a clip to do it easier for myself since it was a new experience. Besides, on this juncture, I did non utilize any Boolean operators and I later realised that I could hold saved myself some hunt clip ab initio by seeking for “ infective glandular fever ” OR “ Epstein-Barr virus ” alternatively of seeking for these footings separately. This pattern will alter in the hereafter as I feel more confident in my abilities to execute database hunts every bit good as experiencing more confident utilizing wildcards, which I did towards the terminal of my hunts ( e.g. antibod* ) . I besides found that utilizing some basic filters such as ‘humans ‘ and publication day of the month ( e.g. ‘last 5 old ages ‘ ) at the beginning may besides salvage me some search clip right at the beginning.

When executing this type of database hunt in the hereafter, I think I will get down with the database I found to be most utile, which was PubMed. I found it produced the most relevant documents and I found it rather easy to utilize. I have significantly developed my cognition and accomplishments in this country and my ability to hunt databases will be used during the remainder of my MSc and in my current pattern in the research lab when required.

Mentions

Vouloumanou E K, Rafilidis P I and Falagas M E. Current diagnosing and direction of infective glandular fever. Myeloid Biology. 2012 ; 1:14-20

Luzuriaga K and Sullivan J L. Infectious glandular fever. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2010 ; 362 ( 21 ) :1993-2000

Hurt C and Tammaro D. Diagnostic rating of monocucleosis-like unwellness. The Americal Journal of Medicine. 2007 ; 120 ( 10 ) :911, e1-911.e8

Nystad T W and Myrmel H. Prevalence of primary versus reactivated Epstein-Barr virus infection with VCA IgG- , VCA IgM- and EBNA-1-antibodies and suspected infective glandular fever. Journal of Clinical Virology. 2007 ; 38:292-297

Appendix A

Horizontal Audit of IM Screening Tests Sept 2012

Entire Trials = 99, age scope 3 months – 77 old ages, most petitions as expected in the teens – mid-twentiess. 96 were GP petitions, merely three IM testing petitions were added by BMS staff, all holding lymphocytosis. All were reported on the same twenty-four hours the petition was received by the lab.

Entire Positives = 10 ( 10.1 % ) , all except one of the positives had typical IM characteristics, lymphocytosis and reactive lymph cells in the movie. The individual positive without IM characteristics had a normal FBC and blood movie and no legible clinical inside informations.

Entire Negative =89 ( 89.9 % )

Clinical Details both groups ( ruddy = IM slide positive )

FBC Results for the negative group.

The Diagnosis of IM is characterised by sore throat, lymphadenopathy and unease. This diagnosing is supported by typical FBC consequences ( lymphocytosis and atypicals in the movie ) . The FBC has a sensitiveness of 75 % and specificity of 92 % for the diagnosing of IM. The IM slide trial for the heterophil antibody has a reported sensitiveness of about 85 % and specificity of 94 % . ( reappraisal by Luzuriaga and Sulivan, Infectious Monomucleosis NEJM, 2010, 263 21, pages 1993-2000. ) .

More that 70 % of FAL petitions fail to run into any of the above diagnostic or research lab standards. In some instances it appears as though the IM slide trial is use as portion of a ‘Tired/Malaise ‘ testing procedure. This is supported as 9 of the IM slide trial petitions besides had a Ferritin petition.

Using our current trial cards it costs about ?1.00 per trial, if we introduced even the most basic degree of petition control i.e. normal FBC without Lymphocytosis, Atypicals in the movie )

Brian H Little BMS 2

Post Author: admin