Assessing Immunity to Rubella Virus: a Plea for Standardization of IgG (Immuno)assays

Bouthry, Elise; Furione, Milena; Huzly, Daniela; Ogee-Nwankwo, Adaeze; Hao, Lijuan; Adebayo, Adebola; Icenogle, Joseph P.; Sarasini, Antonella; Revello, Maria Grazia; Grangeot-Keros, L.; Vauloup‐Fellous, Christelle

doi:10.1128/jcm.00383-16

Cited by 36 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The proportion of seropositive samples by year of age of conscript ranged between 80-100% at S1 and 94-100% at S2 (Table 1) and was lowest among the youngest age groups, although the differences were non-significant. At S1, the geometrical mean of anti-rubella IgG concentrations was 22 IU/ mL (95% CI, 20-23) and at S2, it was 29 IU/mL (95% CI, [27][28][29][30][31]. The increase from S1 to S2 was statistically significant (p < 0.01).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Response to third rubella vaccine dose

Siira

Nøkleby

Barlinn

et al. 2018

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Limited data exist on the immunogenicity of a third dose of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR). In this study, our aim was to evaluate the long-term rubella immunogenicity afforded by two childhood MMR doses of the Norwegian vaccination program in a cohort of conscripts and to determine the effect of an additional dose of MMR vaccine, in order to inform vaccination policy. Blood samples from Norwegian conscripts (n = 495) taken both before and eight months after administration of a dose of MMR vaccine were tested using an enzyme immunoassay to measure anti-rubella IgG. Concentrations <5 IU/mL were regarded as negative, 5.0-9.9 IU/mL as equivocal, and ≥10 IU/mL as positive. Overall, the seropositivity before vaccination was 84.6%, and 99.0% of the conscripts had anti-rubella IgG concentrations ≥5 IU/mL. The seropositivity after vaccination was 94.5%, and 99.8% of the conscripts had antibody concentrations ≥5 IU/mL. The geometrical mean IgG concentrations increased from 21.4 IU/mL before vaccination to 28.9 IU/mL after. Four out of five conscripts, with seronegative concentrations before administrations of an additional MMR dose, had equivocal or seropositive results following vaccination. The cohort of young adults in Norway, which was eligible for two childhood MMR doses, was protected against rubella, and efforts should be made to maintain high vaccine coverage to ensure immunity in the future. A third dose of MMR administered in early adulthood led to an increase in the antibody concentration in our cohort and seroconversion for the majority of seronegative persons.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Response to third rubella vaccine dose

Siira

Nøkleby

Barlinn

et al. 2018

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To elaborate, the UK National Screening Committee recommends defining susceptibility to rubella as having antibody levels less than 10 IU/mL . However, using the recommended practice of a 10 IU/mL threshold for immunity has been reported to lack sensitivity . Over half of samples falling below 10 IU/mL threshold when tested using the Abbott Architect assay were found to be positive for antibodies against rubella by the gold standard methods of immunoblot and neutralization assays .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9 Over half of samples falling below 10 IU/mL threshold when tested using the Abbott Architect assay were found to be positive for antibodies against rubella by the gold standard methods of immunoblot and neutralization assays. 9 Around 2/3 of these false-negatives fell into the equivocal category on the Abbott Architect (5-10 IU/mL). This may lead to some individuals with a concentration of rubella IgG below 10 IU/mL being incorrectly designated as "susceptible" to rubella infection.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening for potential susceptibility to rubella in an antenatal population: A multivariate analysis

Snell

Smith

Chaytor

et al. 2017

Journal of Medical Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rubella causes disease in the fetus. Immunity to rubella is therefore, routinely screened in pregnant women. In this retrospective observational study, we assessed the levels of potential susceptibility to rubella in the population of a north London antenatal clinic. Risk factors for potential susceptibility to rubella and changes in potential susceptibility to rubella over time were studied. Almost all women were screened for potential susceptibility to rubella (99.8%). The majority were predicted to be immune (96.8%). Women booking in later years within the study period showed higher levels of potential susceptibility to rubella. Booking during each subsequent year in the study gave women an odds ratio of 0.91 (CI:0.84, 0.98, P = 0.009) of being predicted to have immunity against rubella. Age was associated with predicted immunity to rubella, with a 5.1% (CI:3.3%, 6.9%, P < 0.001) increased likelihood for every year older. Previous pregnancy was predictive of immunity against rubella with an odds ratio of 1.41 (CI 1.21, 1.61, P = 0.001). Those from a non-white ethnicity were less likely to have antibodies predictive of immunity (OR: 0.730, CI: 0.581, 0.879 P < 0.001). Country of birth was associated with differences in potential susceptibility, with those being born outside of the British Isles having an odds ratio for predicted immunity of 0.63 (CI:0.35,0.91, P = 0.001). Being born in a high-risk country for rubella non-immunity was also a risk factor, giving an odds ratio of predicted immunity to rubella of 0.55 (CI:0.32, 0.77, P < 0.001).

show abstract

“…The consequence of this poor standardization is that a patient's results are dependent upon what test kit is used. A person may obtain a negative result from one test kit and a positive result from another (4,5,10). A false-positive result may provide an incorrect sense of protection, whereas a false-negative result may cause an unnecessary vaccination.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although rubella IgG tests are calibrated using the World Health Organization (WHO) 1st International Standard for AntiRubella Immunoglobulin (RUBI-1-94) and report results in international units per milliliter, there is a lack of standardization of the results reported by different test kits (2,10). The consequence of this poor standardization is that a patient's results are dependent upon what test kit is used.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Dimech

2016

J Clin Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing Immunity to Rubella Virus: a Plea for Standardization of IgG (Immuno)assays

Cited by 36 publications

References 14 publications

Response to third rubella vaccine dose

Response to third rubella vaccine dose

Screening for potential susceptibility to rubella in an antenatal population: A multivariate analysis

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About