Comparative evaluation of tests for detection of parvovirus B19 IgG and IgM

• Published in: APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica et immunologica Scandinavica Vol. 122; no. 3; pp. 223 - 229
• Main Authors: de Ory, Fernando, Minguito, Teodora, Echevarría, Juan Emilio, del Mar Mosquera, María, Fuertes, Antonio
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Denmark Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01-03-2014; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Antibodies, Viral - blood; Antibodies, Viral - immunology; B19V; chemiluminescent immunoassay; enzyme immunoassay; Epstein-Barr Virus Infections - diagnosis; Epstein-Barr Virus Infections - immunology; Fish; Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Indirect - methods; Humans; Immunoassay; Immunoenzyme Techniques - methods; Immunoglobulin G - blood; Immunoglobulin G - immunology; Immunoglobulin M - blood; Immunoglobulin M - immunology; Infections; Measles - diagnosis; Measles - immunology; Parvoviridae Infections - diagnosis; Parvoviridae Infections - immunology; Parvovirus B19, Human - immunology; Rubella - diagnosis; Rubella - immunology; Sensitivity and Specificity; Specimen Handling; Viral infections; chemiluminescent immunoassay; enzyme immunoassay; B19V
• ISSN: 0903-4641; 1600-0463
• DOI: 10.1111/apm.12127

The aim of this study was to evaluate enzyme immunoassays (EIA) (Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany) and chemiluminiscent immunoassays (CLIA) (Diasorin, Saluggia, Italy) in their application to detect B19V‐IgM and ‐IgG. For this purpose, one hundred and ninety samples were studied. Of them, 101 came from recent infection cases (B19V‐specific IgM (86) and/or PCR (87), 42 from past infections, 18 from non‐infected, and 29 from other viral recent infections (Epstein‐Barr virus, measles, and rubella). Samples were characterized by capture (for IgM), or indirect (for IgG) EIA (Biotrin, Dublin, Ireland); indeterminate samples were classified by indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) (Biotrin). All the samples were used for testing IgM assays, and all but the cases from other viral infections were used for IgG tests. For IgM, CLIA, and EIA identified 76 and 62 of 86 IgM positives, respectively (sensitivity 88.4% and 72.1%). Considering B19V IgM negative samples, negative result was obtained in 95 and 92 of 104, being the specificity values of CLIA and EIA 91.3% and 88.5%, respectively. For IgG, CLIA and EIA identified correctly 114 and 115 of the 122 positive samples (sensitivity 93.4% and 94.3%, respectively), and 39 and 36 of 39 negative samples (specificity 100% and 92.3%). As conclusion, CLIA methods can be used in clinical laboratories as adequate alternatives to the well‐established Biotrin EIAs.