Pérez Olmeda M, Balfagón P, Camacho J, Dafouz D, de la Fuente J, Murillo MÁ, Muñoz JL, Fernández García A, Sanz JC, de Ory F. Comparative evaluation of assays for IgM detection of rubella and measles infections.
Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2020;
40:S0213-005X(20)30256-1. [PMID:
32828554 DOI:
10.1016/j.eimc.2020.06.019]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2020] [Revised: 06/18/2020] [Accepted: 06/23/2020] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Serological diagnosis of infections due to measles and rubella viruses is done by IgM detection. The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate commercial systems for detecting IgM against both viruses, including those of ELISA, in indirect and capture formats, chemiluminescence and electrochemiluminescence.
METHODS
Seven (for rubella) and six (for measles) assays were studied. One hundred and sixty two samples were included in the study (from 90 rubella and 72 measles cases), and all were analyzed in all the assays.
RESULTS
The ranges of sensitivity, specificity and agreement for rubella were 94.8-100%, 52.4-100% and 75.5-98.1%, respectively. The corresponding ranges for measles assays were 87.0-100%, 53.3-100%, and 73.0-99.4%.
CONCLUSION
The best-performing assays were chemiluminescence (for measles and rubella IgM), and electrochemiluminescence (for rubella IgM).
Collapse