| Article Access Statistics | | | Viewed | 3292 | | | Printed | 142 | | | Emailed | 3 | | | PDF Downloaded | 586 | | | Comments | [Add] | | |
|
Click on image for details.
|
|
| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2014 | Volume
: 32
| Issue : 3 | Page : 277-280 |
Serological diagnosis of dengue in laboratory practice in Kolkata
N Bhattacharya1, H Mukherjee1, R Naskar1, S Talukdar2, G Das1, N Pramanik3, AK Hati4
1 Medical Entomology Unit, Calcutta School of Tropical Medicine, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
2 Department of Biochemistry and Medical Biotechnology, , Calcutta School of Tropical Medicine, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
3 Department of Tropical Medicine, Medical Entomology, , Calcutta School of Tropical Medicine, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
4 Calcutta School of Tropical Medicine, Calcutta School of Tropical Medicine, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
Correspondence Address:
A K Hati
Calcutta School of Tropical Medicine, Calcutta School of Tropical Medicine, Kolkata, West Bengal
India
 Source of Support: Science and Technology Department, Govt. of
West Bengal, Bikash Bhawan, Kolkata,, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0255-0857.136563
Purpose: To find out the most suitable serological investigative procedures to diagnose dengue cases effectively in the laboratory practice identifying primary and secondary cases as well as period of suffering. Materials and Methods: Dengue suspected cases sent to the laboratory in 2012 in central Kolkata by the local physicians were categorised into seven panels according to the investigations asked for such as (1) only dengue-specific NS1 antigen (2) only IgM antibodies, (3) NS1 + IgM + IgG antibodies, (4) only IgM and IgG, (5) NS1 + IgM, (6) NS1 + IgG and (7) only IgG. Results: Out of 1892 suspected cases, dengue was diagnosed in 725 (38.3%). Through panels I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII, it was possible to diagnose dengue in (I) 35.98% (435/1209), (II) 37.5% (24/60), (III) 49% (173/354), (IV) 30.8% (68/221), (V) 60.5% (23/38), (VI) 40% (2/5) and (VII) 0 of cases respectively. Detail information such as confirmed diagnosis, duration of the disease (whether early or prolonged) and classification of primary and secondary dengue in such early or prolonged stages would only be possible in panel III, which information would be helpful for effective monitoring and treatment of dengue patients. In all other panels, merely fragmentary information would be obtained. Conclusions: Serodiagnostic tests dengue-specific NS1 antigen and IgM and IgG antibodies when conducted simultaneously would be able to diagnose confirmed dengue cases categorising primary and secondary dengue along with the duration of the disease, whether early or prolonged.
[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
|
