Toxy condi - 4. Rubella - 3. All are igg is positive. I am to get married in may Next month. I am very vexed. What happened after marriage. Burning micturition, swelling in penis and weight loss. I should get married or not. Gynaecologist, Kolkata.
Hello, There is nothing to worry in your case. Igg positive means that you had these infections in past and now you are immune to these infections. If igm is positive than only, we are worried as it indicates current or recent infection. Also there is no indications for doing torch in your case. You may have some penile infections which require clinical examination and further treatment. Pregnant lady me rubella positive hai.
Bache par effect na ho iske liye kya upay krna hoga? It is important you upload your report because if igg is only positive that means your wife is immune to rubella and there will not be any problem. But if igg and IgM are positive that means either there is an active infection or the infection occurred very recently.
You upload the report for a correct opinion. Asked for male, 32years old from Delhi. Hi Sir, Rubella infection found igg in during pregnancy my wife pregnancy in approx 5 week so it is dangerous for baby please suggest me. IgG positive means ok, nothing to be done.
It means she was exposed to Rubella in past or vaccinated so she is immune. Asked for female, 27years old from Bhubaneswar. I have rubella igm 0. Can this igm further increase and harm my baby?
Homeopath, Noida. A positive test is 1. MiChart Code. Collection Instructions. Alternate Specimen. Rejection Criteria. Other Rejected Containers: Cadaver or other body fluids eg. Normal Volume. Minimum Volume.
CPT Code. Fee Code. NY State Approved. Utility Find a Blood Draw Station. Contact Us. Blood Draw Station. Test Update.
Despite the development of successful vaccines over four decades ago 7 , 8 , the global burden of disease as a result of Congenital rubella syndrome remains a major concern 3 , However this could, be significantly reduced by immunization and diagnostically-informed antenatal counselling 2. This study was designed to determine the significance of IgG-avidity testing in the serologic diagnosis of antenatal rubella. An informed consent form was signed by each participant. Selection criteria included pregnant women in their first and second trimesters of pregnancy, and had never received antirubella vaccines.
Pregnant women above 24 weeks of gestation, including other pregnant women who were not registered at, nor attended the antenatal clinics of UITH were excluded from this study. A structured questionnaire was designed and standardised.
Data was collected by 3 trained research assistants through structured interviews. Three millilitres of blood were collected from the subjects by Venepuncture into labelled sterile sample tubes and allowed to clot undisturbed at room temperature. OD was read within 60 minutes at nm against the substrate blank, while reference wave length between nm and nm. The controls and the calibrators passed the validation check recommended by the manufacturers of both the IgG and the IgM kits.
Data entry was with the SPSS 11 software. Of the 92 pregnant women that participated in the study, 50 Results further revealed a directly proprtional relationship between age and gestational period amongst the participants. This figure shows the pregnancy history of the study subjects, including previous pregnancy losses — most of which occurred around the 10 th week of gestation. A total of 15 pregnant women had detectable levels of Rubella virus-specific IgG and IgM antibodies in their sera.
Table 1 shows the clinical history and diagnostic results of the 15 Of the 13 pregnant women who had lost previous pregnancies, 2 tested positive for the presence of antirubella IgG antibodies in their sera, while 1 had a borderline antibody test result.
Among the 15 pregnant women whose sera tested positive for the for antirubella IgM and IgG antibodies, 7 Multiple symptoms were however reported. The detection of Rubella virus-specific IgG antibody in the sera of 14 The detection of rubella virus-specific IgM antibodies in the sera of 3 3. Such infections possibly occurred at least 10 days earlier 6.
Detection of IgM antibodies was reported as positive and borderline — which highlights the course of the ongoing infection. The two borderline IgM test results indicate the possibility of an ongoing infection that was captured after about four months and at least 10 days since the infection occurred respectively 6. Although most of the pregnant women that participated in this study had living children Figure 1 , 13 Out of the 13 who had lost previous pregnancies, 2 had positive IgG antibody tests, while 1 had a borderline antibody test.
This result shows that the pregnancy losses could have been a result of Rubella infections in the 2 women with high IgG avidity levels. However, the pregnant woman with borderline IgG and low avidity must have lost her previous pregnancy to other teratogens biological or chemical , however, previous studies carried out have shown that the development of IgG often coincides with diminished levels of serum IgM 6 ; although, this may be confirmed by further laboratory investigations 3.
As presented in Table 1 , clinical symptoms reported by the pregnant women are descriptive of Rubella virus infections at various stages of pathogenesis 5 , 3 Although lymphadenopathy and maculopapula rash were the least observed symptoms amongst the subjects, the predominance of fever cases observed Table 1 conforms to previous studies that showed that the most common symptoms of rubella lymphadenopathy, erythematous rash and low-grade fever can be readily confused with similar illnesses associated with maculopapula rash caused by other common viral and non-viral pathogens or even some drugs 6.
Invariably, clinical diagnosis has been proven unreliable 7 as observed in the discordant laboratory diagnostic results Table 1. This irrefutably confirms the evidence of subclinical Rubella virus infections 3 , 5 as observed in the pregnant women whose sera tested positive for rubella virus-specific IgM antibodies but showed no clinical symptoms.
A positive IgM result may not necessarily mean a primary infection in every case; therefore, anti-rubella IgG avidity assay was used in differentiating between primary and re-infection 14 , 3. Seven of the pregnant women that participated in the study were diagnosed to have past infections, 1 1. A confirmed case of rubella infection in the screened pregnant women is the laboratory diagnosis of the presence of IgM in the sera of the screened pregnant women.
However, immunological responses to rubella infections have various implications such that a Borderline IgM serological test result implies that:. A recent rubella infection occurred because antirubella IgM is detected first, 10 days post infection during which antirubella IgG immunoglobulin have not been produced and therefore are not detected in the patient serum 6 ;. An acute rubella infection began less than two weeks ago, and the host IgM immune response is still being developed because; antirubella IgM peaks at about 4 weeks post infection.
This can be best confirmed if the host IgG test is positive and IgG avidity index is very low because; by three weeks post infection, anti-rubella virus IgG antibodies are present 6 ;. An acute rubella infection occurred within the last seven months during which the IgM may be thinning out and IgG avidity maturing. A confirmatory test however is the antirubella IgG positive test with a moderate avidity index 6 ;. A secondary rubella infection i.
This is because a natural rubella infection normally confers lifelong immunity. Therefore, supplementary measurement of IgM together with the measurement of antirubella specific IgM is combined to distinguish reinfection or viral persistence from primary exposure 6.
It was observed that the sera of a year old subject, who was in her second trimester of pregnancy, had borderline antirubella IgM and was negative for antirubella IgG. This indicates the possibility of a recent rubella infection, which may have occurred about ten days prior to the laboratory serological test 6.
Only one subject however tested positive for antirubella IgM with a positive antirubella IgG as well, and a very low IgG avidity index; thus, implying that the infection was acute and began less than two weeks from date of sample collection. The subject's histories further revealed that she is a year old married multigravidae in her first trimester of pregnancy. She has never been immunized against Rubella virus, without a living child.
She never had an abortion induced or spontaneous.
0コメント