PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

V Moons

Publications and source records attributed to V Moons.

4 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

Evaluation of sensitivity for wild type and mutant forms of hepatitis B surface antigen by four commercial HBsAg assays.

Hepatitis B surface antigen is one of the most important serological markers used to diagnose an HBV infection. Improvements in HBsAg assay sensitivity have been achieved constantly over the years since introduction of the first commercial assays. It is generally assumed that diagnostic assay sensitivity includes the ability to detect wild type and viral variants at the same level. Thus it would be expected, as newer HBsAg assays are developed, that viral mutation would be considered in assay design and that assay sensitivity would be equivalent for wild type as well as mutant forms. Two newly launched HBsAg assays (Bayer ADVIA Centaur and Ortho VITROS ECi) were compared to two established HBsAg assays (Abbott AxSYM and Roche Elecsys) in order to test the assumption that assay sensitivity for variants is equivalent to wild type HBsAg. The four assays were challenged with a standard HBsAg sensitivity panel of both ad and ay subtypes as well as a 13 member mutant panel comprised of both recombinant and native HBsAg members. Results demonstrate that the analytical sensitivity for wild type HBsAg is comparable for all assays tested. In contrast, significant differences were observed for detection of mutants. AxSYM HBsAg detected all mutant samples while all other asssays missed 10 out of 13 samples tested. It is noteworthy that the most frequently reported HBsAg mutation, G145 R, remained undetected in three of the assays tested. It is discussed whether the reduced sensitivity for mutants of the most recent assays represents a new risk for the diagnosis of HBV infection.

DNA, Viral↗
PubMed1998

Evaluation of Glucocard Memory 2 and Accutrend sensor blood glucose meters.

The performance and practicability of 2 blood glucose meters (Glucocard Memory 2 and Accutrend sensor) were evaluated. Both glucose meters produced acceptably precise results in the hyper- and normoglycaemic concentration ranges. In the hypoglycaemic concentration range, the imprecision of Accutrend sensor was much higher than recommended by the American Diabetes Association. Within-run coefficients of variation for Glucocard Memory 2 were 6.3%, 3.9% and 2.4% at glucose concentrations of 1.7 mmol/l, 5.8 mmol/l and 11.7 mmol/l, respectively: for Accutrend sensor these were 15.2%, 5.0% and 1.2% at respective concentrations of 0.9 mmol/l, 4.2 mmol/l and 19.6 mmol/l. Between-day coefficients of variation for Glucocard Memory 2 were 4.8% and 3.5% at glucose concentrations of 3.9 mmol/l and 17.2 mmol/l, respectively and for Accutrend sensor they were 3.8% and 2.9% at glucose concentrations of 3.8 mmol/l and 18.7 mmol/l, respectively. Results were linear over a range of 1.6 mmol/l -29.7 mmol/l for Glucocard Memory 2 and 1.6 mmol/l -33.3 mmol/l for Accutrend sensor. Results of both blood glucose meters correlated closely with the hexokinase/glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase laboratory method. Ninety-eight percent of both Glucocard Memory 2 and Accutrend sensor results were within 20% of the comparison method values. Ninety-three percent of the Glucocard Memory 2 and 96% of the Accutrend sensor results were within 15% of the comparison method results. An inverse relation between the glucose readings and haematocrit values was observed for both blood glucose meters in the hyperglycaemic range and this effect was more pronounced for Accutrend sensor. In the normo- and hypoglycaemic ranges the effect was insignificant and absent, respectively. Minimum sample volume for Glucocard Memory 2 was 3 microliters and for Accutrend sensor it was 9 microliters. Lower sample volumes gave erroneous results. Presenting more than the required volume had no effect on results.

Analysis of Variance↗