Comparison of hemagglutination inhibition test and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for determining antibody to rubella virus

Hemagglutination inhibition, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and passive latex agglutination were used to test 495 human serum samples for determination of rubella immunity. Overall agreements for iMimune status were as follows: hemagglutination inhibition versus ELISA, 94.7% (469 of 495); hemagglutination inhibition versus passive latex agglutination (1:10 dilution), 99.2% (491 of 495); and passive latex agglutination (1:10 dilution) versus ELISA, 94.7% (469 of 495). Both ELISA and passive latex agglutination are satisfactory for rubella immunity screening, with the reservation that the ELISA method examined yielded a large number of false-negative results.

supporting

confidence: 90%

Comparison of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, hemagglutination inhibition, and passive latex agglutination for determination of rubella immune status

Steece¹,

Talley²,

Skeels³

et al. 1985

“…There was one positive serum in the latex agglutination test and two in the ELISA (one of which was latex agglutination positive) which were negative by NT. The problem of false positive reactions has been encountered in previous studies using ELISA (7,19,21). Although the methodology was modified in attempts to reduce these problems (2, 7, 8, 14, 24, 29), it was not always possible to determine whether the results were false positives or whether the ELISA was more sensitive than the HAI test used as reference (7,21).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the latex agglutination test with the hemagglutination inhibition test, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and neutralization test for detection of antibodies to rubella virus

Meegan¹,

Evans²,

Horstmann³

1982

The ability of a rapid, latex agglutination test to diagnose rubella infection and to measure immune status was evaluated by comparison with the hemagglutination-inhibition (HAI) test, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the neutralization (NT) test. The latex agglutination test accurately detected serological conversions in 74 pairs of sera representing 21 natural infections and 53 immunizations. The antibody levels of 276 sera from the general population were determined by latex agglutination, HAI, and ELISA. The correlation coefficients

“…Other investigators (4,20,23,25) have found that enzyme immunoassay detects rising levels of rubella IgG antibody later in the course of infection than the HAI test, and this may in fact be an advantage in the diagnosis of some infections where the first serum specimen is drawn late and a rise in HAI antibodies cannot be shown. However, this was not seen in the present study, as acute-phase serum specimens were collected early in the first week after onset of infection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Comparison of ELISA and SRH for 41 acute and convalescent-phase serum pairs from cases of rubella confirmed by significant change in HAI titer and 10 acute-and convalescent-phase serum pairs from cases with rash not confirmed as rubella (control group) for diagnosis of acute rubella by demonstration of significant VOL. 20,1984 on September 20, 2020 by guest http://jcm.asm.org/ Downloaded from 954 FIELD AND GONG results were retested in duplicate. The SRH results from patient 42 were confirmed in an independent laboratory.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis of postnatally acquired rubella by use of three enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for specific immunoglobulins G and M and single radial hemolysis for specific immunoglobulin G

Field¹,

Gong²

1984

Three commercial indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) (RUBELISA, Enzygnost-Rubella, and Rubazyme) and a commercial single radial hemolysis (SRH) test (Rubazone) were evaluated for the diagnosis of acute rubella by testing 41 acute-(<7 days postonset) and convalescent-phase (8 to 82 days postonset) serum pairs from cases of rubella previously confirmed by signfficant change in the hemagglutination inhibition test titer. Specificity was tested by using 10 acuteand convalescent-phase serum samples from patients with rash not confirmed as rubella (control group). In testing for rubella-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody, Enzygnost-Rubella and Rubazyme confirmed infection in 40 and RUBELISA in 39 of the 41 proven rubella patients. For one patient all three ELISAs failed to show a significant titer rise. No false-positive diagnoses occurred in the control group, although a suspected infection was shown by Rubazyme in one patient. No specific IgM could be detected in this case. Single radial hemolysis confirmed infection in 39 of the 41 proven rubella patients, and one false-positive diagnosis occurred in the control group patients. Of the 43 convalescentphase serum samples, rubella-specific IgM was detected in 42 by Enzygnost-Rubella, in 41 by RUBELISA M, and in 39 by Rubazyme-M. For a rapid diagnosis with acute-phase sera, specific IgM detection by ELISA was most reliable in hemagglutination inhibition test-positive sera; of 18 such serum samples IgM was shown in 15 by Enzygnost-Rubella, in 13 by RUBELISA M, and in 11 by Rubazyme-M. Conversely, of 24 acute-phase serum samples with a hemagglutination inhibition test titer of <10, specific IgM was detected in only 5 by Enzygnost-Rubella, in 4 by RUBELISA M, and in 1 by Rubazyme-M. False-positive specific IgM results were shown by Rubazyme-M in two serum samples from one patient in the control group. These serum samples were negative with the other two ELISA methods.