1.Evaluation of Real-time PCR Kits for Epstein-Barr Virus DNA Assays.
Jihye HA ; Yongjung PARK ; Jungeun SHIM ; Hyon Suk KIM
Laboratory Medicine Online 2016;6(1):31-35
BACKGROUND: Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is known to be the causative agent of infectious mononucleosis and EBV-related malignancies. In this study, we compared the results of three real-time PCR kits for EBV DNA assays. METHODS: A total of 300 whole blood samples submitted for quantitative EBV PCR between January 2013 and September 2014 at Severance Hospital were included. The samples were tested by using the Artus EBV RG PCR Kit (Qiagen, Germany), AccuPower EBV Quantitative PCR Kit (Bioneer, Korea), and Real-Q EBV Kit (BioSewoom, Korea). Samples with discordant results between the three kits were confirmed by direct sequencing. RESULTS: The result concordance rate and kappa coefficient (K) were 86.3% and 0.69 for Artus-AccuPower, 93.3% and 0.85 for Artus-Real-Q, and 92.3% and 0.83 for AccuPower-Real-Q, respectively. The correlations between the three kits were found to be significant, with a correlation coefficient of r=0.854 for Artus-AccuPower, -0.802 for Artus-Real-Q, and -0.977 for AccuPower-Real-Q, respectively (P<0.0001). If the real-time PCR concordant results of 258 samples and the direct sequencing results of 42 real-time PCR discordant samples were assumed to be true, the sensitivity/specificity values were 0.921/0.976 for Artus, 0.902/0.965 for AccuPower, and 0.967/1.000 for Real-Q. CONCLUSIONS: The three real-time PCR kits showed excellent sensitivities and specificities. All these kits would be acceptable for clinical and therapeutic management of EBV. However, some discordant results between the kits indicate the need for caution in clinical diagnosis and staging. Further implementation of standardized methodology would be needed for EBV DNA assays.
Diagnosis
;
DNA*
;
Herpesvirus 4, Human*
;
Infectious Mononucleosis
;
Polymerase Chain Reaction
;
Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction*
2.Reliability and Validity of the Short Form of the Literacy-Independent Cognitive Assessment in the Elderly.
Jungeun KIM ; Jee H JEONG ; Seol Heui HAN ; Hui Jin RYU ; Jun Young LEE ; Seung Ho RYU ; Dong Woo LEE ; Yong S SHIM ; Seong Hye CHOI
Journal of Clinical Neurology 2013;9(2):111-117
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Literacy-Independent Cognitive Assessment (LICA) has been developed for a diagnosis of dementia and is a useful neuropsychological test battery for illiterate populations as well as literate populations. The objective of this study was to develop the short form of the LICA (S-LICA) and to evaluate the reliability and validity of the S-LICA. METHODS: The subtests of the S-LICA were selected based on the factor analysis and validation study results of the LICA. Patients with dementia (n=101) and normal elderly controls (n=185) participated in this study. RESULTS: Cronbach's coefficient alpha of the S-LICA was 0.92 for illiterate subjects and 0.94 for literate subjects, and the item-total correlation ranged from 0.63 to 0.81 (p<.01).The test-retest reliability of the S-LICA total score was high (r=0.94, p<.001), and the subtests had high test-retest reliabilities (r=0.68-0.87, p<.01). The correlation between the K-MMSE and S-LICA total scores were substantial in both the illiterate subjects (r=0.837, p<.001) and the literate subjects(r=0.802, p<.001). The correlation between the S-LICA and LICA was very high (r=0.989, p<.001). The area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic was 0.999 for the literate subjects and 0.985 for the illiterate subjects. The sensitivity and specificity of the S-LICA for a diagnosis of dementia were 97% and 96% at the cutoff point of 72 for the literate subjects, and 96% and 93% at the cutoff point of 68 for the illiterate subjects, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the S-LICA is a reliable and valid instrument for quick evaluation of patients with dementia in both illiterate and literate elderly populations.
Aged
;
Dementia
;
Literacy
;
Humans
;
Neuropsychological Tests
;
Reproducibility of Results
;
ROC Curve
;
Sensitivity and Specificity
3.Comparative Effects of Bivalent, Quadrivalent, and Nonavalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccines in The Prevention of Genotype-Specific Infection:A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Jimin KIM ; Young June CHOE ; Jungeun PARK ; Jahyun CHO ; Chelim CHEONG ; Jin-Kyoung OH ; Mihai PARK ; Eunha SHIM ; Su-Yeon YU
Infection and Chemotherapy 2024;56(1):37-46
Background:
Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is a major global disease burden and the main cause of cervical cancer. Certain HPV genotypes, with are the most common etiologic pathogens and cause a significant disease burden, are being targeted for vaccine development. However, few studies have focused on the comparative effectiveness of the bivalent HPV (2v-HPV), quadrivalent HPV (4v-HPV), and nonavalent HPV (9v-HPV) vaccines against HPV strain-specific infection. This study investigated the comparative effects of these vaccines against genotype-specific infection.
Materials and Methods:
We conducted a pairwise and network meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials of HPV vaccines according to sex and HPV infection status for nine HPV genotypes (HPV 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58).
Results:
Overall, 10 randomized controlled trials (12 articles) were included in this study. In the network metaanalysis, no statistically significant differences were observed in the prevention of carcinogenic HPV strains (16/18/31/33/45/52/58) between the 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines in female HPV infection–naïve populations. However, the 9v-HPV vaccine showed a significantly superior effect compared with 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines in preventing HPV 31/33/45/52/58 infections. Although 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines provided some cross-protection against HPV 31/33/45/52/58 infections, the effect was significant only on HPV 31 infection. For HPV 16 and 18, neither statistically significant nor small differences were found in the prevention of HPV infection among the 2v-HPV, 4v-HPV, and 9v-HPV vaccines.
Conclusion
Our study complements previous understanding of how the effect of HPV vaccines differs according to the HPV genotype. This is important because HPV genotype prevalence varies among countries. We advocate for continued efforts in vaccinating against HPV, while public health agencies should consider the difference in the vaccine effect and HPV genotype prevalence when implementing HPV vaccination in public vaccination programs.