OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical value of testing IgA and the avidity of IgG (by two commercial systems) for the detection of recent active toxoplasmosis (RAT), and to study the IgG avidity during the course of infection. METHODS: The IgA was tested by a capture ELISA (Pasteur, France) and the avidity of IgG was determined by two modified commercial indirect ELISA methods (Sorin, Italy; Behringwerke, Germany) in 12 patients who were not immunosuppressed (group I) and 57 healthy subjects with a past infection by Toxoplasma gondii (group II). RESULTS: IgA was present in 75% of patients from group I and 21% of subjects from group II. The reliability for diagnosis of RAT was: sensitivity 75%, specificity 84%, positive predictive value 52.9% and negative predictive value 93.3%. In group I, 91.7% of patients had more than 50% low-avidity IgG, by both methods; in group II, 21% of subjects had low-avidity IgG at levels from 40% to 50%, by both methods. The diagnostic reliability of the two methods for the detection of low-avidity IgG in the first samples of RAT was similar when a breakpoint of 50% was used, with values of: sensitivity 91.7%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value 100% and negative predictive value 98%. CONCLUSIONS: The study of IgA is not on its own adequate for diagnosis of RAT. However, testing the avidity of IgG is more reliable for the diagnosis of RAT, in studies of one serum sample or sequential samples.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical value of testing IgA and the avidity of IgG (by two commercial systems) for the detection of recent active toxoplasmosis (RAT), and to study the IgG avidity during the course of infection. METHODS: The IgA was tested by a capture ELISA (Pasteur, France) and the avidity of IgG was determined by two modified commercial indirect ELISA methods (Sorin, Italy; Behringwerke, Germany) in 12 patients who were not immunosuppressed (group I) and 57 healthy subjects with a past infection by Toxoplasma gondii (group II). RESULTS:IgA was present in 75% of patients from group I and 21% of subjects from group II. The reliability for diagnosis of RAT was: sensitivity 75%, specificity 84%, positive predictive value 52.9% and negative predictive value 93.3%. In group I, 91.7% of patients had more than 50% low-avidity IgG, by both methods; in group II, 21% of subjects had low-avidity IgG at levels from 40% to 50%, by both methods. The diagnostic reliability of the two methods for the detection of low-avidity IgG in the first samples of RAT was similar when a breakpoint of 50% was used, with values of: sensitivity 91.7%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value 100% and negative predictive value 98%. CONCLUSIONS: The study of IgA is not on its own adequate for diagnosis of RAT. However, testing the avidity of IgG is more reliable for the diagnosis of RAT, in studies of one serum sample or sequential samples.
Authors: Jose G Montoya; Oliver Liesenfeld; Sandra Kinney; Cynthia Press; Jack S Remington Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 5.948