Automated rubella antibody screening:a cautionary tale

Evaluation of two (02) platforms for chemiluminescence-based detection of anti-rubella IgG antibodies in a sub-Saharan country, Côte d'Ivoire

The diagnosis of rubella is mainly made in pregnant women and the newborn by specific IgG and/or IgM detection. In addition to HAI and ELISA techniques, new immunoanalytical methods have been developed. This study aimed to evaluate two chemiluminescence platforms, Architect i2000SR and Maglumi 800 for rubella biological diagnosis in Côte d'Ivoire. Blood samples were taken from 113 pregnant women aged 15 to 30 in prenatal care. Samples were analyzed for Rubella IgG detection at the NBTS laboratory on the evaluated platforms and the Cobas e601 used as a reference. The majority of women were in their second trimester of pregnancy. Among them, only 13.3% were vaccinated against rubella. The evaluated platforms showed good precision with coefficients of variation >10%. Regarding analytical performances, sensitivities were 97.53% and 96.29% whereas specificities were 100% and 96.88% for Architect I2000SR and Maglumi800, respectively. Both platforms showed good agreement with cobas e601 for antibody levels <200 IU/ml and <350UI/ml for Architect and Maglumi 800, respectively. Findings of the current study revealed that the two platforms have similar features with Cobas e601 and could be used routinely for the serological diagnosis of rubella. However, the results of one platform should not be extrapolated to another.

Performance of the Elecsys Rubella IgG assay in the diagnostic laboratory setting for assessment of immune status

Rubella in early pregnancy bears a high risk for congenital defects (e.g., cataracts, hearing loss, and heart disease) and for long-term sequelae in the newborn. Despite implementation of vaccination programs in many regions, the threat of devastating consequences from congenital rubella virus infection remains and careful screening of maternal immune status before and during pregnancy helps to reduce the risk. This study compared the performance of the Elecsys Rubella IgG assay with that of other assays routinely used for screening. Samples from 1,090 women undergoing routine antenatal care were tested using the Elecsys and Enzygnost Rubella IgG assays and the hemagglutination inhibition test. Samples with hemagglutination inhibition titers of <32 (n = 148) were additionally tested using the Vidas, AxSYM, Liaison, and Architect Rubella IgG assays. Agreement of qualitative results from the Elecsys, Enzygnost, and hemagglutination inhibition assays was good in all samples. All assays showed 100.0% specificity. In samples with hemagglutination inhibition titers of <32, the Elecsys, AxSYM, and Enzygnost assays showed higher sensitivity (>90.0%) than the other immunoassays (78.6 to 82.4%). The Elecsys assay reported significantly higher rubella virus IgG levels than the other immunoassays across the whole set of 1,090 samples, with the largest bias and deviation from limits of agreement in Bland-Altman analysis. In conclusion, the Elecsys assay is highly sensitive and specific with regard to qualitative results and suitable for routine automated screening. However, given the considerable variation between quantitative results from different immunoassays, testing methods should be documented and the same assay used throughout an individual's antenatal follow-up wherever possible.

Investigation into low-level anti-rubella virus IgG results reported by commercial immunoassays

Since the 1980s, commercial anti-rubella virus IgG assays have been calibrated against a WHO International Standard and results have been reported in international units per milliliter (IU/ml). Laboratories testing routine patients' samples collected 100 samples that gave anti-rubella virus IgG results of 40 IU/ml or less from each of five different commercial immunoassays (CIA). The total of 500 quantitative results obtained from 100 samples from each CIA were compared with results obtained from an in-house enzyme immunoassay (IH-EIA) calibrated using the WHO standard. All 500 samples were screened using a hemagglutination inhibition assay (HAI). Any sample having an HAI titer of 1:8 or less was assigned a negative anti-rubella virus antibody status. If the HAI titer was greater than 1:8, the sample was tested in an immunoblot (IB) assay. If the IB result was negative, the sample was assigned a negative anti-rubella virus IgG status; otherwise, the sample was assigned a positive status. Concordance between the CIA qualitative results and the assigned negative status ranged from 50.0 to 93.8% and 74.5 to 97.8% for the assigned positive status. Using a receiver operating characteristic analysis with the cutoff set at 10 IU/ml, the estimated sensitivity and specificity ranged from 70.2 to 91.2% and 65.9 to 100%, respectively. There was poor correlation between the quantitative CIA results and those obtained by the IH-EIA, with the coefficient of determination (R(2)) ranging from 0.002 to 0.413. Although CIAs have been calibrated with the same international standard for more than 2 decades, the level of standardization continues to be poor. It may be time for the scientific community to reevaluate the relevance of quantification of anti-rubella virus IgG.

Evaluation of eight anti-rubella virus immunoglobulin g immunoassays that report results in international units per milliliter

An evaluation of anti-rubella virus immunoglobulin G (IgG) immunoassays that report in international units per milliliter (IU/ml) was performed to determine their analytical performance and the degree of correlation of the test results. A total of 321 samples were characterized based on results from a hemagglutination inhibition assay. The 48 negative and 273 positive samples were used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the assays. When equivocal results were interpreted as reactive, the sensitivity of the immunoassays ranged from 98.9 to 99.9% and the specificity ranged from 77.1 to 95.8%. All assays had positive and negative delta values of less than 2. A significant difference between the mean results of all assays was demonstrated by analysis of variance. However, post hoc analysis showed there was good correlation in the mean results expressed in IU/ml between some of the assays. Our results show the level of standardization between anti-rubella virus IgG immunoassays reporting results expressed as IU/ml has improved since a previous study in 1992, but further improvement is required.

Antenatal screening for hepatitis B and antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii and rubella virus: evaluation of two commercial immunoassay systems

A comparative evaluation of the Abbott AxSYM and DPC Immulite random-access analyzers was performed using 497 prospectively collected serum samples. These samples were sent to the laboratory for routine antenatal screening for hepatitis B surface antigen and immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii and rubella virus. The overall agreement between the two assay systems ranged from 97.4 to 100%. After discrepancy analysis, the outcome in terms of sensitivity and specificity varied from 98.2 to 100% for all but one of the assays tested. The AxSYM rubella virus IgG assay tended to report protective or indeterminate antibody levels in 1% of the samples. This shortcoming might be overcome by raising the cutoff of the microparticle enzyme immunoassay system.