Search

Background: Commercial immunoassays that detect IgG and IgM directed toward VCA and IgG EBNA are used in combination to assess EBV immune status. However, this strategy does not always confirm/exclude recent/past EBV infection or absence of immunity., Objectives: The aim of our study was to perform complementary investigations on samples with atypical EBV serological profiles, in order to identify the clinical situation they correspond to., Study Design: EBV serology was performed using EBV VCA IgM/IgG and EBNA IgG LXL® DiaSorin assay. Complementary investigations included ELISA IgM VCA, immunoblots, CMV IgM/IgG and CMV IgG avidity, and EBV PCR., Results: In our study, 12810 EBV serological results were analyzed, and 3580 atypical profiles were detected (28 %). Among these latter, isolated VCA IgG represented 42.9 %, the three positive markers accounted for 29.1 %, isolated EBNA IgG represented 18.5 %, isolated VCA IgM accounted for 6.4 % and positive VCA IgM & positive EBNA IgG represented 3.1 %. VCA IgG detected alone were specific in 100 % cases and EBNA IgG detected alone were specific in 91.7 % cases. VCA IgM detected alone were false positive or due to a cross reaction with CMV in 52.8 % cases. The pattern positive VCA IgM and positive EBNA IgG correspond to a false positive in VCA IgM, EBNA IgG or both in 83.4 % cases. Positive EBV VCA IgM/IgG and EBNA IgG were unreliable to detect active EBV infection in 66.7 % cases., Discussion: Atypical EBV serological profiles may correspond to several clinical situations and complementary investigations allow to determine the immune status in more than 98.5 % cases., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Antibody response to the messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine has been shown to be diminished in rituximab (RTX)-treated patients. We undertook this study to compare humoral and T cell responses between healthy controls, patients with autoimmune diseases treated with RTX, and those treated with other immunosuppressants, all of whom had been vaccinated with 2 doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine., Methods: We performed anti-spike IgG and neutralization assays just before and 28 days after the second BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine dose. The specific T cell response was assessed in activated CD4 and CD8 T cells using intracellular flow cytometry staining of cytokines (interferon-γ, tumor necrosis factor, and interleukin-2) after stimulation with SARS-CoV-2 spike peptide pools., Results: A lower proportion of responders with neutralizing antibodies to the vaccine was observed in the RTX group (29%; n = 24) compared to the other immunosuppressants group (80%; n = 35) (P = 0.0001) and the healthy control group (92%; n = 26) (P < 0.0001). No patients treated with RTX in the last 6 months showed a response. Time since last infusion was the main factor influencing humoral response in RTX-treated patients. The functional CD4 and CD8 cellular responses to SARS-CoV-2 peptides for each single cytokine or polyfunctionality were not different in the RTX group compared to the other immunosuppressants group or the control group. In RTX-treated patients, the T cell response was not different between patients with and those without a humoral response., Conclusion: RTX induced a diminished antibody response to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but the functional T cell response was not altered compared to healthy controls and autoimmune disease patients treated with other immunosuppressants. Further work is needed to assess the clinical protection granted by a functionally active T cell response in the absence of an anti-spike antibody response., (© 2021 American College of Rheumatology.)

We report evaluation of 30 assays' (17 rapid tests (RDTs) and 13 automated/manual ELISA/CLIA assay (IAs)) clinical performances with 2594 sera collected from symptomatic patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR on a respiratory sample, and 1996 pre-epidemic serum samples expected to be negative. Only 4 RDT and 3 IAs fitted both specificity (> 98%) and sensitivity (> 90%) criteria according to French recommendations. Serology may offer valuable information during COVID-19 pandemic, but inconsistent performances observed among the 30 commercial assays evaluated, which underlines the importance of independent evaluation before clinical implementation., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The prevalence of COVID-19 infection during pregnancy is not known. COVIPREG is a prospective French multicenter study to assess the seroprevalence at the time of delivery and the maternal and neonatal impact of COVID-19 infection during pregnancy. In order to study factors associated with poor outcomes after COVID-19 Infection during pregnancy and adapt the sample size of the study, a preliminary assessment of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG was planned after 500 inclusions in a one perinatal center of Paris area., Objectives: To assess the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody response in pregnant women at the time of delivery during the COVID-19 pandemia., Study Design: A prospective observational study at Cochin hospital (Level III maternity). Patients admitted for delivery were offered to participate to the study. Each patient participating to the study was tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG antibodies using a commercially available ELISA., Results: Among the 529 patients included in the COVIPREG study between April 29 and June 26, 529 were assessed for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody response and 25 had a positive test, ie 4.7 % with a confidence interval at 95 % [3.0 %-6.9 %])., Conclusions: Four months after the beginning of the infection in Paris, the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG in pregnant women at the time of delivery is low. Studies evaluating the impact of COVID-19 infection during pregnancy should take this information in account in order to adapt the sample size., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest CVF has obtained a grand from Ferring pharmaceutics for the COVIPREG study., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background : Several serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been developed or use, but most have only been validated on few samples, and none provide medical practitioners with an easy-to-use, self-contained, bedside test with high accuracy. Material and methods : Two-hundred fifty-six sera from 101 patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive RT-PCR) and 50 control sera were tested for IgM/IgG using the NG-Test IgM-IgG COVID all-in-one assay. The seroconversion dynamic was assessed by symptom onset and day of RT-PCR diagnosis. Results: Among the SARS-CoV-2 infected patients, positive IgG and/or IgM result was observed for 67.3% of patients (68/101), including 17 (16.8%) already positive at the day of RT-PCR, and 51 (50.5%) with observable seroconversion, and 32.7% (33/101) remained negative as subsequent sampling was not possible (patient discharge or death). The sensitivity increased with the delay between onset of symptoms and sampling, going from 29.1%, 78.2% and 86.5% for the time periods of 0-9-, 10-14- and >14-days after the onset of symptoms, respectively. Cumulative sensitivity, specificity, Positive Predictive Value and Negative Predictive Value were 97.0%, 100%, 100% and 96.2%, respectively 15-days after the onset of symptoms. No difference in seroconversion delay was observed regardless of whether patients received ventilation. Conclusions: The NG-test is a bedside serological assay that could serve as a complementary source of diagnostic information to RT-PCR and chest imaging. It may also be useful to monitor immunological status of medical and non-medical workers during the ongoing pandemic, and the general population after social distancing measures have eased.

Background: ZIKV infection has potentially severe consequences particularly in fetuses/newborns born to mothers that were infected early in pregnancy. Diagnosis relies on the detection of ZIKV IgM that can also be detected due to cross reactivity or to nonspecific polyclonal activation of the immune system. Therefore, in case of ZIKV IgM detection, identification of a recent infection can be of major importance for the optimal management of pregnant women., Objective: This study evaluates the performances of a commercially available assay to measure ZIKV-IgG avidity., Study Design: A total of 110 serum or plasma samples collected from symptomatic or asymptomatic patients living or returning from a ZIKV endemic area were classified according to epidemiological and clinical information, and to serology and molecular assays' results. Samples were tested with the IgG ZIKV Avidity Test (DIA.PRO®) according to manufacturer's instruction and with a modified protocol., Results: By using the manufacturer's Avidity Index cut-off, distinction between recent and past infection was unclear with similar AIs in the two situations (p = 0.8872). Sensitivity and specificity in identifying recent infection were poor, 67.3 % and 4.5 % respectively. By using a modified protocol, a better discrimination was observed with significant differences between mean AIs (p = 0.0318), and with higher sensitivity and specificity, respectively 87.8 % and 100 %., Conclusion: Our results highlight that IgG ZIKV Avidity Test DIA.PRO® assay is not reliable enough to be used in clinical practice without modifications., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest No conflict of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immunity to rubella-virus (RV) is commonly determined by measuring specific IgG (RV-IgG). However, RV-IgG results may be different and even discordant, depending on the assay used. Cell-mediated immunity is not routinely investigated for diagnostic purposes., Objectives: Our aim was to investigate humoral and cellular immunity of women with negative or equivocal RV-IgG before, and after post-partum vaccination., Study Design: A total of 186 pregnant women were included in the study. During pregnancy, humoral immunity was investigated with two RV-IgG immunoassays, an immunoblot and a T-cell mediated immunity test. In the post-partum vaccination period, measuring RV-IgM and RV-IgG avidity allowed us to determine whether women raised a primary or a secondary immune response., Results: Before vaccination, 52.2% women, supposed to be susceptible, had positive anti-E1 RV-IgG indicating strong evidence of previous exposure to RV. All (100%) pregant women who had a positive immunoblot before immunization raised a secondary immune response to vaccination, and 96.8% who had a negative immunoblot before immunization, raised a primary immune response to vaccination. All women who raised a primary immune response after vaccination had negative anti-E1 RV-IgG and negative cell-mediated immunity., Discussion: These results indicate that individuals can have evidence of protective immunity against rubella despite negative RV-IgG., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Immunity to rubella virus (RV) is commonly determined by measuring specific immunoglobulin G (RV IgG). However, RV IgG results and their interpretation may vary, depending on the immunoassay, even though most commercial immunoassays (CIAs) have been calibrated against an international standard and results are reported in international units per milliliter. A panel of 322 sera collected from pregnant women that tested negative or equivocal for RV IgG in a prior test (routine screening) was selected. This panel was tested with two reference tests, immunoblotting (IB) and neutralization (Nt), and with 8 CIAs widely used in Europe. IB and Nt gave concordant results on 267/322 (82.9%) sera. Of these, 85 (26.4%) sera were negative and 182 (56.5%) sera were positive for both tests. All 85 IB/Nt-negative samples were classified as negative with all CIAs. Of the 182 IB/Nt-positive samples, 25.3 to 61.5% were classified as equivocal and 6 to 64.8% were classified as positive with the CIAs. Wide variations in titers in international units per milliliter were observed. In our series, more than half of the women considered susceptible to RV based on CIA results tested positive for RV antibodies by IB/Nt. Our data suggest that (i) sensitivity of CIAs could be increased by considering equivocal results as positive and (ii) the definition of immunity to RV as the 10-IU/ml usual cutoff as well as the use of quantitative results for clinical decisions may warrant reconsideration. A better standardization of CIAs for RV IgG determination is needed., (Copyright © 2016, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2015, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.)

In the majority of cytomegalovirus (CMV) immunoglobulin G (IgG) avidity assays, avidity determination can be performed on the entire CMV IgG measurable positive concentration range. However, in some exceptional samples with very low IgG levels, inappropriately low avidity indexes have been described. In this study, we addressed some possible causes and the clinical importance of these inappropriately low avidity indexes. We compared VIDAS (bioMérieux), Liaison (DiaSorin), and Architect (Abbott) CMV IgG avidity assays on 129 samples from patients with past CMV infections, focusing on samples with low IgG levels. Inappropriately low avidity samples were further evaluated using seven different urea-based IgG avidity assays. We confirmed that inappropriately low avidity indexes in samples with very low IgG levels occur, but are rare. We could show that this phenomenon is not confined to a single assay and that assays employing chaotropic agents are affected more frequently and profoundly. In situations where the CMV IgG avidity is performed on CMV immunoglobulin M (IgM)-negative samples, the avidity index should be interpreted cautiously in cases of very low CMV IgG levels, whatever the technique used.

Congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection has potentially severe consequences in newborns. The testing of pregnant women for CMV-specific antibodies may be useful for the identification of women at risk of transmitting the infection to the fetus. The determination of CMV IgG avidity helps to establish the timing of infection as IgG avidity matures during the course of infection. This study examines the performance of the Elecsys CMV IgG Avidity assay using preselected samples from patients at different phases of CMV infection. The Elecsys CMV IgG Avidity assay was tested at three sites using sequential samples from patients with recent primary CMV infection, as well as single samples from patients with recent primary or past CMV infection. The Elecsys assay discriminated well between early (low avidity) and late (high avidity) phases of infection in sequential serum samples. Overall, 98.8% of low-avidity samples corresponded to infection onset <180 days before sampling and 77.8% of all high-avidity results corresponded to infection onset >90 days before sampling. The assay's sensitivity was 90-97%, with specificity ranging from 89 to 100%, depending on the consideration of gray-zone avidity values. Single samples from recent primary or past infection showed similar distributions of avidity results. The Elecsys CMV IgG Avidity assay results are in agreement with preselected samples from patients with primary or past CMV infection, showing that the test is an adequate predictor of the phase of infection.

Screening for acute rubella infection in pregnancy is an important element of antenatal care. This study compared the sensitivity, specificity and reproducibility of two new, fully automated Elecsys(®) Rubella IgM and IgG immunoassays designed for the Elecsys 2010, Modular Analytics E170, COBAS e-411 and COBAS e-601 and e602 analytical platforms, with current assays using serum from patients with primary rubella infections, vaccinated patients, patients with potentially cross-reacting infections and on routine samples in clinical laboratories in France, Germany and Italy. Both assays showed good within-run and within-laboratory precision. A sensitivity of 79.8-96.0% was demonstrated for Elecsys IgM in primary, early acute infection, consistent with existing assays. In samples obtained from routine antenatal screening, the Elecsys Rubella IgM assay revealed high specificity (98.7-99.0%). A significantly (p<0.0001) lower reactivity was demonstrated in samples from previously infected patients where acute rubella infection was excluded, and the incidence of false positives in patients with potentially cross-reacting infections was lower with Elecsys Rubella IgM compared with other. The Elecsys Rubella IgG assay exhibited a relative sensitivity of 99.9-100.0% and specificity of 97.4-100.0% in samples from routine antenatal screening. The Elecsys Rubella IgM and IgG assays allow convenient, rapid and reliable determination of anti-rubella antibodies. Sensitivity, specificity and reproducibility were comparable with existing assay systems. Assay results were available in approximately half the time required for currently employed methods and the assays are compatible with widely used analytical platforms., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: In case of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, differentiation between primary and non-primary CMV infection can be of major importance for the correct management of pregnant women or immunocompromised patients. Besides CMV-IgM and IgG, CMV-IgG avidity measurement is now commonly used to distinguish primary from non-primary infection., Objective: To re-evaluate the performance of the VIDAS CMV-IgG avidity assay in comparison with 2 other techniques (Architect Abbott and Liaison DiaSorin) and to study the kinetics of CMV-IgG avidity maturation., Study Design: A panel of 135 sequential samples collected from 31 patients with a proven primary infection (attested by very recent CMV-IgG seroconversion) was tested with VIDAS, Liaison and Architect CMV-IgG avidity assays. Moreover, 235 routinely collected samples, CMV-IgG and CMV-IgM positive, were analyzed with Liaison, VIDAS and an in-house CMV-IgG avidity assay., Results and Conclusions: The analysis of all the data allowed suggesting new VIDAS cut-off values of 0.40 for low avidity and 0.65 for high avidity, which significantly increase the test performance and enable better patient managements. Using these VIDAS new cut-off values, all of the 31 primary infections were correctly dated. Comparatively, 25 out of 31 were correctly dated with the Architect assay and 29 out of 31 with the Liaison assay. We also demonstrated that the VIDAS CMV-IgG avidity assay allows observing correctly the maturation of CMV-IgG avidity, which could be useful as an additional parameter for diagnosis of a recent CMV infection., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a leading cause of physical and neurological abnormalities in newborns. Hence, the diagnosis of CMV infection in pregnant women is necessary in order to allow appropriate management of their pregnancy. New assays have been developed for the Roche Elecsys® immunoassay platform that detect CMV-specific immunoglobulin (Ig)M and IgG, with the IgM assay designed to target IgM produced at the start of infection rather than IgM persisting later in infection. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the new assays compared with other commercial kits widely distributed in laboratories. The performance of the Elecsys and comparator CMV IgM and IgG assays was assessed using 967 preselected patient samples characterised by CMV infection status, as well as being compared using 1,668 unselected clinical samples. The Elecsys CMV IgM and IgG assays performed consistently with comparator assays using the preselected samples. The Elecsys CMV IgM assay showed improved sensitivity compared with the Enzygnost® assay in primary infection (91.2 % vs. 79.4 %) and improved specificity over the Architect® assay in potentially cross-reacting samples (94.1 % vs. 82.4 %). The Elecsys IgM assay reported fewer positive results in the later stages of CMV infection compared with ETI-CYTOK-M ELISA, while the Elecsys IgG assay reported slightly fewer negative results in the early stages of infection compared with ETI-CYTOK-G ELISA. There was good agreement between Elecsys and comparator assays using unselected clinical samples (range 90.4-99.4 %). The Elecsys CMV IgM and IgG assays compare well with routinely used assays and are suitable for clinical use.

We describe here a rapid and semiautomated method for the determination of rubella virus immunoglobulin G (IgG) avidity with the VIDAS instrument. A total of 153 serum samples from persons with naturally acquired rubella virus infections (n = 98), from vaccinated persons (n = 44), and from patients with autoantibodies (n = 11) were included in this study. The rubella virus-specific IgG avidity assay we developed for the VIDAS instrument was evaluated by comparison with an in-house method. Results obtained with the VIDAS instrument allow considering this method valuable to help confirm or exclude acute primary infection or recent vaccination.

We measured rubella virus immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM levels, as well as IgG avidity indexes, in serum samples taken before or after 6 months either after infection or after vaccination. The results obtained indicate that humoral immune responses are different after primary infection and after vaccination. This may have important consequences on the serological diagnosis of rubella virus infection.