J Wendelien Dorigo-Zetsma1, Maurine A Leverstein-van Hall2, Joyce Vreeswijk2, Jutte J C de Vries3, Ann C T M Vossen3, Hinke I Ten Hulscher4, Jeroen Kerkhof4, Gaby P Smits4, Wilhelmina L M Ruijs4, Marion P G Koopmans5, Robert S van Binnendijk6. 1. Center for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Laboratory Medical Microbiology, Tergooi Hospital, Hilversum, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Medical Microbiology, Bronovo Hospital, The Hague, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 4. Center for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. 5. Center for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Department of Viroscience, Erasmus University MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Center for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: rob.van.binnendijk@rivm.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Following the recognition of a measles case in a hospital in The Netherlands, health care workers (HCW) from the premises were screened by a commercial enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for measles IgG to identify persons at risk for measles. At least 10% of the HCW were tested measles IgG-negative. As this was considered an unusually high proportion, we hypothesized suboptimal sensitivity of EIAs, especially in medical personnel that had vaccine-induced immunity rather than antibodies resulting from natural infection. OBJECTIVES: To determine (vaccine-induced) measles immunity in HCW, using different EIAs compared to the plaque reduction neutralization (PRN) test, the best surrogate marker for vaccine efficacy and immune protection. STUDY DESIGN: Sera from HCW were tested for measles IgG antibodies in three commercial EIAs, in a bead-based multiplex immunoassay (MIA) and in the PRN test, and evaluated against age and vaccination history of the HCW. RESULTS: Of the 154 HCW, born between 1960 and 1995, 153 (99.4%) had protective levels of measles antibodies (PRN> 120mIU/ml). The three EIAs failed to detect any measles IgG antibodies in approximately 10% of the HCW, while this percentage was approximately 3% for the MIA. Negative IgG results rose to 19% for individuals born between 1975 and 1985, pointing to an age group largely representing vaccinated persons from the first measles vaccination period in The Netherlands. CONCLUSION: The results show limitations in the usefulness of current EIA assays for determining protective measles antibodies in persons with a vaccination history.
BACKGROUND: Following the recognition of a measles case in a hospital in The Netherlands, health care workers (HCW) from the premises were screened by a commercial enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for measles IgG to identify persons at risk for measles. At least 10% of the HCW were tested measles IgG-negative. As this was considered an unusually high proportion, we hypothesized suboptimal sensitivity of EIAs, especially in medical personnel that had vaccine-induced immunity rather than antibodies resulting from natural infection. OBJECTIVES: To determine (vaccine-induced) measles immunity in HCW, using different EIAs compared to the plaque reduction neutralization (PRN) test, the best surrogate marker for vaccine efficacy and immune protection. STUDY DESIGN: Sera from HCW were tested for measles IgG antibodies in three commercial EIAs, in a bead-based multiplex immunoassay (MIA) and in the PRN test, and evaluated against age and vaccination history of the HCW. RESULTS: Of the 154 HCW, born between 1960 and 1995, 153 (99.4%) had protective levels of measles antibodies (PRN> 120mIU/ml). The three EIAs failed to detect any measles IgG antibodies in approximately 10% of the HCW, while this percentage was approximately 3% for the MIA. Negative IgG results rose to 19% for individuals born between 1975 and 1985, pointing to an age group largely representing vaccinated persons from the first measles vaccination period in The Netherlands. CONCLUSION: The results show limitations in the usefulness of current EIA assays for determining protective measles antibodies in persons with a vaccination history.
Authors: Donald R Latner; Sun B Sowers; Kiana Anthony; Heather Colley; Christine Badeau; Jessica Coates; Phili Wong; Yetunde Fakile; Cristina Interiano; Kevin B Pannell; Van Leung-Pineda; Manisha M Patel; Paul A Rota; Brandi M Limbago; Carole J Hickman Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Iris D Brinkman; Jelle de Wit; Gaby P Smits; Hinke I Ten Hulscher; Maria C Jongerius; Taymara C Abreu; Fiona R M van der Klis; Susan J M Hahné; Marion P G Koopmans; Nynke Y Rots; Debbie van Baarle; Robert S van Binnendijk Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2019-07-19 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Zheng Quan Toh; Beth Temple; Tran Ngoc Huu; Vo Thi Trang Dai; Nguyen Trong Toan; Doan Y Uyen; Kathryn Bright; Lien Anh Ha Do; E Kim Mulholland; Paul V Licciardi Journal: NPJ Vaccines Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 7.344