Multicenter evaluation of five commercial rubella virus immunoglobulin G kits which report in international units per milliliter

The Standardization and Control of Serology and Nucleic Acid Testing for Infectious Diseases

Historically, the detection of antibodies against infectious disease agents was achieved using test systems that utilized biological functions such as neutralization, complement fixation, hemagglutination, or visualization of binding of antibodies to specific antigens, by testing doubling dilutions of the patient sample to determine an endpoint. These test systems have since been replaced by automated platforms, many of which have been integrated into general medical pathology. Methods employed to standardize and control clinical chemistry testing have been applied to these serology tests. However, there is evidence that these methods are not suitable for infectious disease serology. An overriding reason is that, unlike testing for an inert chemical, testing for specific antibodies to infectious disease agents is highly variable; the measurand for each test system varies in choice of antigen, antibody classes/subclasses, modes of detection, and assay kinetics, and individuals' immune responses vary with time after exposure, individual immune-competency, nutrition, treatment, and exposure to variable circulating sero- or genotypes or organism mutations. Therefore, unlike that of inert chemicals, the quantification of antibodies cannot be standardized using traditional methods. However, there is evidence that the quantification of nucleic acid testing, reporting results in international units, has been successful across many viral load tests. Similarly, traditional methods used to control clinical chemistry testing, such as Westgard rules, are not appropriate for serology testing for infectious diseases, mainly due to variability due to frequent reagent lot changes. This review investigates the reasons why standardization and control of infectious diseases should be further investigated and more appropriate guidelines should be implemented.

A novel cell-based high throughput assay to determine neutralizing antibody titers against circulating strains of rubella virus

A large rubella outbreak occurred in Japan 2013, and 14,344 rubella and 45 congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) cases were reported. At that time, the populational immunity was above the protective threshold assessed by hemmaglutination inhibition (HI) titer. The genotype 2B rubella virus (RV) strains were responsible for the outbreak, which are non-indigenous in Japan. In this work, a cell-based high throughput assay was established to measure the neutralizing antibody (NA) titer against circulating RV isolates. RV infection poorly induces cytopathic effects in tissue culture, preventing the casual measurement of NA titer. Our assay system has overcome this hurdle. Using this assay, we re-evaluated the antibody prevalence rate against circulating viral isolates using human sera collected before the outbreak. Individuals with protective IgG titer (≥10 IU/ml) represented 88.1% of the population. Consistently, 85.2% of the population had protective neutralizing antibody titers (≥1:8) against the vaccine strain. In contrast, 50.5% of the population had protective neutralizing antibody titers against circulating genotype 2B RV strains. These data suggest that the herd immunity assessed by HI titer should have been appreciated deliberately.

Characterization of rubella-specific humoral immunity following two doses of MMR vaccine using proteome microarray technology

Introduction//Background

The lack of standardization of the currently used commercial anti-rubella IgG antibody assays leads to frequent misinterpretation of results for samples with low/equivocal antibody concentration. The use of alternative approaches in rubella serology could add new information leading to a fuller understanding of rubella protective immunity and neutralizing antibody response after vaccination.

Methods

We applied microarray technology to measure antibodies to all rubella virus proteins in 75 high and 75 low rubella virus-specific antibody responders after two MMR vaccine doses. These data were used in multivariate penalized logistic regression modeling of rubella-specific neutralizing antibody response after vaccination.

Results

We measured antibodies to all rubella virus structural proteins (i.e., the glycoproteins E1 and E2 and the capsid C protein) and to the non-structural protein P150. Antibody levels to each of these proteins were: correlated with the neutralizing antibody titer (p<0.006); demonstrated differences between the high and the low antibody responder groups (p<0.008); and were components of the model associated with/predictive of vaccine-induced rubella virus-specific neutralizing antibody titers (misclassification error = 0.2).

Conclusion

Our study supports the use of this new technology, as well as the use of antibody profiles/patterns (rather than single antibody measures) as biomarkers of neutralizing antibody response and correlates of protective immunity in rubella virus serology.

Standardization of Assays That Detect Anti-Rubella Virus IgG Antibodies

Rubella virus usually causes a mild infection in humans but can cause congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). Vaccination programs have significantly decreased primary rubella virus infection and CRS; however, vaccinated individuals usually have lower levels of rubella virus IgG than those with natural infections. Rubella virus IgG is quantified with enzyme immunoassays that have been calibrated against the World Health Organization (WHO) international standard and report results in international units per milliliter. It is recognized that the results reported by these assays are not standardized. This investigation into the reasons for the lack of standardization found that the current WHO international standard (RUB-1-94) fails by three key metrological principles. The standard is not a pure analyte but is composed of pooled human immunoglobulin. It was not calibrated by certified reference methods; rather, superseded tests were used. Finally, no measurement uncertainty estimations have been provided. There is an analytical and clinical consequence to the lack of standardization of rubella virus IgG assays, which leads to misinterpretation of results. The current approach to standardization of rubella virus IgG assays has not achieved the desired results. A new approach is required.

Where to Now for Standardization of Anti-Rubella Virus IgG Testing

The lack of standardization of rubella IgG testing continues to be a problem 20 years since the standard was introduced. The situation is complex and poorly understood. As demonstrated by an article in this issue (E. Bouthry, M. Furione, D. Huzly, A. Ogee-Nwankwo, L. Hao, A. Adebayo, J. Icenogle, A. Sarasini, M. Grazia Revello, L. Grangeot-Keros, and C. Vauloup-Fellous, J Clin Microbiol 54:1720-1725, 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00383-16), the problem remains. The situation is far from being resolved, but at least the process for change has started.

High-throughput assay optimization and statistical interpolation of rubella-specific neutralizing antibody titers

Rubella remains a social and economic burden due to the high incidence of congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) in some countries. For this reason, an accurate and efficient high-throughput measure of antibody response to vaccination is an important tool. In order to measure rubella-specific neutralizing antibodies in a large cohort of vaccinated individuals, a high-throughput immunocolorimetric system was developed. Statistical interpolation models were applied to the resulting titers to refine quantitative estimates of neutralizing antibody titers relative to the assayed neutralizing antibody dilutions. This assay, including the statistical methods developed, can be used to assess the neutralizing humoral immune response to rubella virus and may be adaptable for assessing the response to other viral vaccines and infectious agents.

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.

Results of continuous monitoring of the performance of rubella virus IgG and hepatitis B virus surface antibody assays using trueness controls in a multicenter trial

We conducted a multicenter trial in Canada to assess the value of using trueness controls (TC) for rubella virus IgG and hepatitis B virus surface antibody (anti-HBs) serology to determine test performance across laboratories over time. TC were obtained from a single source with known international units. Seven laboratories using different test systems and kit lots included the TC in routine assay runs of the analytes. TC measurements of 1,095 rubella virus IgG and 1,195 anti-HBs runs were plotted on Levey-Jennings control charts for individual laboratories and analyzed using a multirule quality control (MQC) scheme as well as a single three-standard-deviation (3-SD) rule. All rubella virus IgG TC results were "in control" in only one of the seven laboratories. Among the rest, "out-of-control" results ranged from 5.6% to 10% with an outlier at 20.3% by MQC and from 1.1% to 5.6% with an outlier at 13.4% by the 3-SD rule. All anti-HBs TC results were "in control" in only two laboratories. Among the rest, "out-of-control" results ranged from 3.3% to 7.9% with an outlier at 19.8% by MQC and from 0% to 3.3% with an outlier at 10.5% by the 3-SD rule. In conclusion, through the continuous monitoring of assay performance using TC and quality control rules, our trial detected significant intra- and interlaboratory, test system, and kit lot variations for both analytes. In most cases the assay rejections could be attributable to the laboratories rather than to kit lots. This has implications for routine diagnostic screening and clinical practice guidelines and underscores the value of using an approach as described above for continuous quality improvement in result reporting and harmonization for these analytes.

A qualitative and quantitative comparison of two rubella virus-specific IgG antibody immunoassays

Monitoring circulating rubella IgG antibody concentration in children and in women of child-bearing age is an important step in maintaining high levels of rubella immunity and preventing congenital rubella syndrome. The objective of this study was to evaluate the Beckman Coulter Access Rubella IgG assay against the Dade Behring Enzygnost Anti-Rubella-Virus/IgG EIA assay in serum of children (n = 342) immunized with two doses of measles-mumps-rubella-II (MMR-II) vaccine. We found that the two assays had a high qualitative (96%), and quantitative correlation 0.93 (0.92, 0.95), based on a protective antibody concentration of > or =15 IU/mL. The mean rubella antibody concentration measured by both assays was >37 IU/mL; however, 10% of our study participants had low concentrations of circulating rubella-specific antibodies. These findings might indicate a need for additional monitoring of antibody levels as these children reach child-bearing age, or potentially a need for a third dose of vaccine to increase seroconversion.

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.

Basic problems of serological laboratory diagnosis

Serological laboratory diagnosis is inflicted with at least two kinds of basic problems. One type relates to the fact that the serological diagnosis of infectious diseases is double indirect: First, to diagnose an infectious disease, the identification of the microbial agent is sought that caused the disease. Second, to identify this infectious agent, the patient's immune response to potential agents is measured. So, the serological test is neither measuring directly disease nor the cause of the disease, but the patient's immune system. Another type of problem is based on the fact that each person's immune system is very individual. The exact physicochemical properties of antibodies are unique for each clone of antibodies. The way an individual's immune system sees an infectious agent depends not only on the genetic makeup of the person but also on the personal experience from former encounters with infectious agents. Both types of problems lead to complexities in selecting the appropriate test, in interpreting the results, and in standardizing serological tests. Therefore, a close collaboration of the laboratory with the clinic is mandatory to avoid erroneous conclusions from serological test results, which might lead to wrong decisions in patient care.

Multicenter evaluation of a novel quantification method for rubella and toxoplasmosis antibodies

Antibody quantification by EIA is possible without a standard curve. Following the so-called alpha method only one test dilution is used, the resulting absorbance is corrected and the IU/ml will be calculated by means of a mathematical formula. This new kind of a single point measurement was evaluated in seven independent laboratories by comparison with commercial EIAs using a standard curve or a titer calibration line. For the quantification of IgG against rubella virus this study comprised 1,480 individual samples and three comparison EIAs. For IgG against Toxoplasma gondii a total of 743 samples was evaluated in two comparison tests. The results obtained by the alpha method show a precision and accuracy more than sufficient for routine testings. Also the technical expenses and reagent costs were reduced. Prerequisites and limitations are discussed against the background of the problem of immune status definition.