Comparison of the serological tests XXXX and ELISA for the diagnosis of @entity4281 in France   .

@entity1 @entity8434 @entity1062 @entity3619 @entity13550 @entity13871 @entity7736 @entity4281
Serological diagnosis of @entity4281 ( @entity4281 ) is a key element for efficient @entity1 treatment management. A rapid @entity1062 ( @entity1062 ) using the recombinant Em18 antigen (rEm18) was recently developed. The aim of our study was to assess this test on a panel of sera from French @entity1 with @entity4281 and control @entity1 . In a blind test, a total of 112 serum samples were tested including samples of @entity4281 (n  =  30), @entity8434 [ @entity8434 ] (n  =  15), and @entity8434 [ @entity8434 ] (n  =  1). For the comparison, 66 sera from @entity1 with hepatocarcinoma, @entity7736 , @entity13871 , @entity13550 , or @entity3619 were used. The diagnostic test sets we used were the rEm18- @entity1062 and two validated ELISAs with rEm18 and Em2-Em18 antigens, respectively. For the @entity1062 , 27/30 sera from @entity4281 @entity1 , 4/15 sera from @entity8434 @entity1 and the @entity8434 patient serum were positive. One serum from the control panel ( @entity13871 ) was positive for the @entity1062 . The rEm18- @entity1062 sensitivity (90.0%) and specificity (92.7%) for detection of Em18-specific antibodies confirmed it as a relevant tool for @entity4281 diagnosis. The rEm18-ELISA had a sensitivity of 86.7% and specificity of 91.5%, and the Em2-Em18-ELISA had a sensitivity of 96.7% and specificity of 87.8%. However, when @entity4281 @entity1 sera are recorded as weak in intensity with the @entity1062 , we recommend a double reading and use of a reference sample if the @entity1062 is used for @entity1 follow-up.
