论文部分内容阅读
本文调查了肝癌户与对照户各66户,共952人份。查出HBsAg阳性158份,其中e抗原阳性36份,占22.8%;e抗体阳性19份,占12.0%。查出抗-HBs阳性114份,其中e抗体阳性13份,占11.4%,但未检出e抗原。e抗原和e抗体的阳性率,肝癌户高于对照户。e的总阳性率两组分别为9.0%和5.0%。e抗原的阳性率显著高于e抗体,与当地HBsAg阳性率明显高于抗-HBs相一致。e抗原的阳性率在HBsAg的效价≥1:128时为28.0%,较效价<1:128时的11.8%为高;e抗体则与此相反。不同HBsAg亚型中e的分布似与本地区亚型优势相关,而与亚型类别本身无关。
This article investigated the liver cancer households and control households each 66, a total of 952 people. 158 HBsAg positive samples were detected, of which 36 were positive for e antigen (22.8%) and 19 were positive for e antibody (12.0%). Of the 114 positive anti-HBs, 13 were positive for e antibody, accounting for 11.4%, but no e antigen was detected. e antigen and e antibody positive rate, liver cancer households higher than the control households. The total positive rate of e was 9.0% and 5.0% in both groups. e antigen positive rate was significantly higher than e antibody, and local HBsAg positive rate was significantly higher than that of anti-HBs. The positive rate of e antigen was 28.0% when the titer of HBsAg was ≥1: 128, higher than 11.8% when the titer was <1: 128; The distribution of e in different HBsAg subtypes seems to be related to the subtype advantage in the region but not to the subtype type itself.