Literature DB >> 15135741

Evaluation of rubella IgM enzyme immunoassays.

Graham A Tipples1, Rasool Hamkar, Talat Mohktari-Azad, Michael Gray, Jennifer Ball, Carol Head, Samuel Ratnam.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Rubella virus generally causes a mild fever, rash illness similar in clinical presentation to infections by other viruses including measles and parvovirus B19. Rubella infections in pregnant women in the first trimester carry a high risk of congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) which can result in severe congenital defects in the infants. The goal of rubella immunization programs is therefore to eliminate CRS. The primary test for the laboratory confirmation of rubella is IgM serology. It is therefore important to evaluate currently available commercial rubella IgM immunoassays to ensure high quality rubella diagnostic testing. STUDY
DESIGN: In this study, we compared the performance of seven commercial rubella IgM enzyme immunoassays (EIA) (Meddens, Denka Seiken, Behring, Wampole, Captia, Sigma and Abbott Axsym) using well-defined panels of sera from rubella and non-rubella/rash-illness cases.
RESULTS: The Meddens, Denka Seiken, Behring and Wampole rubella IgM EIAs all performed similarly for sensitivity (range of 74.1-76.8%) and specificity (range of 93.9-96.1%). Relative to the other assays, the Axsym had a higher sensitivity (78.9%) but lower specificity (86.5%). The Captia assay had the lowest overall sensitivity (66.4%), while the Sigma assay had a lower specificity (85.6%) in relation to the other assays.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the Meddens, Denka Seiken, Behring and Wampole rubella IgM EIAs are comparable in their overall performance with respect to sensitivity and specificity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15135741     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2003.11.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Virol        ISSN: 1386-6532            Impact factor:   3.168


  12 in total

1.  Evaluation of three immunoassays used for detection of anti-rubella virus immunoglobulin M antibodies.

Authors:  Wayne Dimech; Lena Panagiotopoulos; Joan Marler; Nicolas Laven; Susan Leeson; Elizabeth M Dax
Journal:  Clin Diagn Lab Immunol       Date:  2005-09

2.  Evaluation of commercial rubella immunoglobulin G avidity assays.

Authors:  Samira Mubareka; Hannah Richards; Michael Gray; Graham A Tipples
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Dried blood spots versus sera for detection of rubella virus-specific immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG in samples collected during a rubella outbreak in Peru.

Authors:  Rita F Helfand; Cesar Cabezas; Emily Abernathy; Carlos Castillo-Solorzano; Ana Cecilia Ortiz; Hong Sun; Fernando Osores; Lucia Oliveira; Alvaro Whittembury; Myrna Charles; Jon Andrus; Joe Icenogle
Journal:  Clin Vaccine Immunol       Date:  2007-09-19

4.  Evaluation of rubella virus immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM assays with the new Vidia instrument.

Authors:  Maria Cristina Medici; Monica Martinelli; Valeria Albonetti; Carlo Chezzi; Giuseppe Dettori
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2008-03-26       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Rubella Surveillance and Diagnostic Testing among a Low-Prevalence Population, New York City, 2012-2013.

Authors:  Beth M Isaac; Jane R Zucker; Francesca R Giancotti; Emily Abernathy; Joseph Icenogle; Jennifer L Rakeman; Jennifer B Rosen
Journal:  Clin Vaccine Immunol       Date:  2017-09-05

6.  The status of rubella IgG antibody titer between antenatal and postnatal among pregnant non-immune to rubella.

Authors:  Irfana Rasool; Ayesha Azad; Saeed Baradwan; Muhammad Salman Bashir; Dania Al-Jaroudi
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Development of a new method for diagnosis of rubella virus infection by reverse transcription-loop-mediated isothermal amplification.

Authors:  Nobuo Mori; Yoshie Motegi; Yasushi Shimamura; Takashi Ezaki; Tomo Natsumeda; Toshihiro Yonekawa; Yoshinori Ota; Tsugunori Notomi; Tetsuo Nakayama
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Evaluation of Diagnostic Accuracy of Eight Commercial Assays for the Detection of Rubella Virus-Specific IgM Antibodies.

Authors:  Joanne Hiebert; Vanessa Zubach; Carmen L Charlton; Jayne Fenton; Graham A Tipples; Kevin Fonseca; Alberto Severini
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2021-10-27       Impact factor: 5.948

9.  Confirmation of rubella within 4 days of rash onset: comparison of rubella virus RNA detection in oral fluid with immunoglobulin M detection in serum or oral fluid.

Authors:  Emily Abernathy; Cesar Cabezas; Hong Sun; Qi Zheng; Min-hsin Chen; Carlos Castillo-Solorzano; Ana Cecilia Ortiz; Fernando Osores; Lucia Oliveira; Alvaro Whittembury; Jon K Andrus; Rita F Helfand; Joseph Icenogle
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2008-11-12       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 10.  Rubella antibody screening during pregnancy in an urban area of Northern Italy.

Authors:  Massimo De Paschale; Maria Teresa Manco; Alessia Paganini; Carlo Agrappi; Paola Mirri; Gabriella Cucchi; Barbara Saccani; Alberto Flores D'Arcais; Pierangelo Clerici
Journal:  Infect Dis Rep       Date:  2012-02-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.