Determination of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Immunization Status Using Oral Fluid Samples

Thieme, Thomas R.; Piacentini, Stephen; Davidson, Sandra; Steingart, Karen R

doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03520030061029

Cited by 29 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, no significant differences in the sensitivity for anti‐hepatitis C IgG in oral fluid specimens collected by Salivette and saliva•sampler were reported (28). Despite their selective performance, oral fluids collected by the OraSure oral specimen collection device and/or saliva•sampler provided sufficient quantities of specific antibody concentrations for the detection of IgG against rubella virus, parvovirus B19 (29), HIV (12, 19), measles virus (27), and Trypanosoma cruzi (3).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficiency of oral fluid collection devices in extracting antibodies

Chang¹,

Cohen²,

Bienek

2009

Oral Microbiology and Immunology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: To facilitate diagnoses, this study determined the efficacy of commercial oral fluid collection devices for their ability to recover three human immunoglobulin isotypes; immunoglobulin A (IgA), IgG, and IgM. Methods: The sandwich enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay was used to determine antibody recovery from the following devices: (i) OraSure® oral specimen collection device, (ii) saliva•sampler®, (iii) ORALscreen™ collector, (iv) Dri‐Angle®, (v) no. 2 cotton roll, (vi) all‐gauze sponges device, and (vii) DentaSwabs®. For each isotype tested, the recovered eluate was compared with the concentration applied to the device. The performance of each device was determined at various antibody concentrations. Results: Recovery of IgA from the saliva•sampler, ORALscreen collector, Dri‐Angle and cotton roll was comparable to that seeded onto the device. When compared with the seeded IgG concentration, the mean concentration of antibody recovered by each product differed by approximately ± 9 ng/ml. The average amount of IgM recovered by the cotton roll and all‐gauze sponges device was approximately 29 and 39 ng/ml, respectively, less (P < 0.0001) than that seeded on the device. For all isotypes tested, the amount of antibody recovered from the device was dependent on the initial seeding concentration. Conclusion: Collectively, these data suggest that the product used for specimen collection can affect retrieval of antibodies and potentially confound patient diagnosis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficiency of oral fluid collection devices in extracting antibodies

Chang¹,

Cohen²,

Bienek

2009

Oral Microbiology and Immunology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, the utility of saliva has been assessed in studies of the prevalence of many, mainly viral, infections in different populations and settings: Hepatitis A, hepatitis B (HBV), and HCV 5,6 ; human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), 7 parvovirus B19, 8 and measles, mumps, and rubella. 9 Despite these advantages, however, saliva does have several disadvantages when compared with blood. As it does not seem to be as sensitive as venous blood for HCV antibody detection, partly because of the quality of the sample being patient-dependent, it is considered only of use in examining HCV infection at a population level.…”

Section: Salivary Testing For Virus Infectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting Antibodies to Hepatitis C in Injecting Drug Users

Rice

Abou‐Saleh

2012

Addictive Disorders &Amp; Their Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the proteomic level numerous viruses can be detected with high sensitivity and specificity via detection of salivary antibodies against viruses . There are highly sensitive methods available for dengue virus (sensitivity 92%, specificity 100% [ 102 ]), hepatitis A (sensitivity 99%, specificity 99% [ 103 ]), hepatitis B (sensitivity 100%, specificity 100% [ 104 ]), hepatitis C (sensitivity 100%, specificity 100%) [ 104 , 105 ], HIV-1 (sensitivity 95% to 100%, specificity 95% to100% [ 106 - 109 ]), measles (sensitivity 97%, specificity 100% [ 110 ]), mumps (sensitivity 94%, specificity 94% [ 110 ]), parvovirus type B19 (sensitivity 100%, specificity 95% [ 111 ]), and rubella (sensitivity 98%, specificity 98% [ 110 ]). Detection of virus antigens in saliva is also a possible highly sensitive and specific method in detection of hepatitis B virus (sensitivity 92%, specificity 87% [ 112 ]).…”

Section: Salivary Dna Rna and Proteome In The Diagnosis Of Diseasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Salivary Genomics, Transcriptomics and Proteomics: The Emerging Concept of the Oral Ecosystem and their Use in the Early Diagnosis of Cancer and other Diseases

Fábían¹,

Fejérdy²,

Csermely³

2008

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:There is an increasingly growing interest world-wide for the genomics, transcriptomics and proteomics of saliva and the oral cavity, since they provide a non-invasive source of unprecedently rich genetic information. The complexity of oral systems biology goes much beyond the human genome, transcriptome and proteome revealed by oral mucosal cells, gingival crevicular fluid, and saliva, and includes the complexity of the oral microbiota, the symbiotic assembly of bacterial, fungal and other microbial flora in the oral cavity. In our review we summarize the recent information on oral genomics, transcriptomics and proteomics, of both human and microbial origin. We also give an introduction and practical advice on sample collection, handling and storage for analysis. Finally, we show the usefulness of salivary and oral genomics in early diagnosis of cancer, as well as in uncovering other systemic diseases, infections and oral disorders. We close the review by highlighting a number of possible exploratory pathways in this emerging, hot research field.

show abstract

Determination of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Immunization Status Using Oral Fluid Samples

Abstract: Protective blood levels of antibodies to measles, mumps, and rubella can be assessed by means of an oral fluid sample with good reliability.

Cited by 29 publications

References 8 publications

Efficiency of oral fluid collection devices in extracting antibodies

Efficiency of oral fluid collection devices in extracting antibodies

Detecting Antibodies to Hepatitis C in Injecting Drug Users

Salivary Genomics, Transcriptomics and Proteomics: The Emerging Concept of the Oral Ecosystem and their Use in the Early Diagnosis of Cancer and other Diseases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About