Cargando…

Screening for Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) infection status in university freshmen: acceptability of a gingival swab method

Prophylactic vaccines against Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) are under development. EBV-naïve college freshmen are ideal candidates for an efficacy trial, because their incidence of infectious mononucleosis (mono) during freshman year is as high as 20%. To assess perceptions about mono and a mono vaccine,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grimm-Geris, J. M., Dunmire, S. K., Duval, L. M., Filtz, E. A., Leuschen, H. J., Schmeling, D. O., Kulasingam, S. L., Balfour, H. H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6518790/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30869049
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268819000335
_version_ 1783418529812316160
author Grimm-Geris, J. M.
Dunmire, S. K.
Duval, L. M.
Filtz, E. A.
Leuschen, H. J.
Schmeling, D. O.
Kulasingam, S. L.
Balfour, H. H.
author_facet Grimm-Geris, J. M.
Dunmire, S. K.
Duval, L. M.
Filtz, E. A.
Leuschen, H. J.
Schmeling, D. O.
Kulasingam, S. L.
Balfour, H. H.
author_sort Grimm-Geris, J. M.
collection PubMed
description Prophylactic vaccines against Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) are under development. EBV-naïve college freshmen are ideal candidates for an efficacy trial, because their incidence of infectious mononucleosis (mono) during freshman year is as high as 20%. To assess perceptions about mono and a mono vaccine, and to learn if EBV immune status could be determined using a gingival swab rather than phlebotomy, we performed a cross-sectional study of 235 healthy students at the beginning of their freshman year. Subjects completed questionnaires and donated oral washes, gingival swabs and venous blood. Overall, 90% of students found the swab easy to use and 80% preferred the swab over venepuncture. Of the 193 students with sufficient samples, 108 (56%) had EBV antibodies in blood vs. 87 (45.1%) in the gingival swab. The sensitivity and specificity of the swab compared with blood for detecting EBV antibodies was 75.9% and 94.1%, respectively, with an accuracy of 89.3%. EBV DNA was detected in the oral wash and swab of 39.2% and 30.4% of blood-antibody-positive individuals, respectively. In conclusion, 44% of our freshmen were EBV-naïve and thus vaccine candidates, the gingival swab was an acceptable alternative to phlebotomy for detecting EBV antibody but needs improved sensitivity, and the perceived value of EBV vaccine was high (72% believed they would benefit).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6518790
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65187902019-06-04 Screening for Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) infection status in university freshmen: acceptability of a gingival swab method Grimm-Geris, J. M. Dunmire, S. K. Duval, L. M. Filtz, E. A. Leuschen, H. J. Schmeling, D. O. Kulasingam, S. L. Balfour, H. H. Epidemiol Infect Original Paper Prophylactic vaccines against Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) are under development. EBV-naïve college freshmen are ideal candidates for an efficacy trial, because their incidence of infectious mononucleosis (mono) during freshman year is as high as 20%. To assess perceptions about mono and a mono vaccine, and to learn if EBV immune status could be determined using a gingival swab rather than phlebotomy, we performed a cross-sectional study of 235 healthy students at the beginning of their freshman year. Subjects completed questionnaires and donated oral washes, gingival swabs and venous blood. Overall, 90% of students found the swab easy to use and 80% preferred the swab over venepuncture. Of the 193 students with sufficient samples, 108 (56%) had EBV antibodies in blood vs. 87 (45.1%) in the gingival swab. The sensitivity and specificity of the swab compared with blood for detecting EBV antibodies was 75.9% and 94.1%, respectively, with an accuracy of 89.3%. EBV DNA was detected in the oral wash and swab of 39.2% and 30.4% of blood-antibody-positive individuals, respectively. In conclusion, 44% of our freshmen were EBV-naïve and thus vaccine candidates, the gingival swab was an acceptable alternative to phlebotomy for detecting EBV antibody but needs improved sensitivity, and the perceived value of EBV vaccine was high (72% believed they would benefit). Cambridge University Press 2019-03-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6518790/ /pubmed/30869049 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268819000335 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Grimm-Geris, J. M.
Dunmire, S. K.
Duval, L. M.
Filtz, E. A.
Leuschen, H. J.
Schmeling, D. O.
Kulasingam, S. L.
Balfour, H. H.
Screening for Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) infection status in university freshmen: acceptability of a gingival swab method
title Screening for Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) infection status in university freshmen: acceptability of a gingival swab method
title_full Screening for Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) infection status in university freshmen: acceptability of a gingival swab method
title_fullStr Screening for Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) infection status in university freshmen: acceptability of a gingival swab method
title_full_unstemmed Screening for Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) infection status in university freshmen: acceptability of a gingival swab method
title_short Screening for Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) infection status in university freshmen: acceptability of a gingival swab method
title_sort screening for epstein–barr virus (ebv) infection status in university freshmen: acceptability of a gingival swab method
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6518790/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30869049
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268819000335
work_keys_str_mv AT grimmgerisjm screeningforepsteinbarrvirusebvinfectionstatusinuniversityfreshmenacceptabilityofagingivalswabmethod
AT dunmiresk screeningforepsteinbarrvirusebvinfectionstatusinuniversityfreshmenacceptabilityofagingivalswabmethod
AT duvallm screeningforepsteinbarrvirusebvinfectionstatusinuniversityfreshmenacceptabilityofagingivalswabmethod
AT filtzea screeningforepsteinbarrvirusebvinfectionstatusinuniversityfreshmenacceptabilityofagingivalswabmethod
AT leuschenhj screeningforepsteinbarrvirusebvinfectionstatusinuniversityfreshmenacceptabilityofagingivalswabmethod
AT schmelingdo screeningforepsteinbarrvirusebvinfectionstatusinuniversityfreshmenacceptabilityofagingivalswabmethod
AT kulasingamsl screeningforepsteinbarrvirusebvinfectionstatusinuniversityfreshmenacceptabilityofagingivalswabmethod
AT balfourhh screeningforepsteinbarrvirusebvinfectionstatusinuniversityfreshmenacceptabilityofagingivalswabmethod