Comparison of mumps-IgM ELISAs in acute infection

Krause, C.; Molyneaux, P.; Ho-Yen, D. O.; McIntyre, P. G.; Carman, William F.; Templeton, Kate

doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2006.10.010

Cited by 43 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The apparent higher rate of detection of IgM by the CDC assay than the commercial capture IgM test could be due to selection of the serum specimens chosen to evaluate and validate the tests. Although avidity testing has revealed that persons with a secondary immune response are capable of eliciting an IgM response, the IgM response appears to be variable and generally not as reactive in EIAs as that observed in a typical primary response (20)(21)(22)(23). Serum panels used to set the parameters for IgM detection (sensitivity) during the development of commercial assays are more likely to be collected from persons having a primary immune response and therefore have higher levels of IgM.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Sensitivity of Laboratory Diagnostic Methods from a Well-Characterized Outbreak of Mumps in New York City in 2009

Rota

Rosen

Doll

et al. 2013

Clin. Vaccine Immunol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A mumps outbreak in upstate New York in 2009 at a summer camp for Orthodox Jewish boys spread into Orthodox Jewish communities in the Northeast, including New York City. The availability of epidemiologic information, including vaccination records and parotitis onset dates, allowed an enhanced analysis of laboratory methods for mumps testing. Serum and buccal swab samples were collected from 296 confirmed cases with onsets from September through December 2009. All samples were tested using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) capture IgM enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and a real-time reverse transcription-PCR (rRT-PCR) that targets the short hydrophobic gene. A subset of the samples (n ‫؍‬ 205) was used to evaluate 3 commercial mumps IgM assays and to assess the sensitivity of using an alternative target gene (nucleoprotein) in the rRT-PCR protocol. Among 115 cases of mumps with 2 documented doses of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, the CDC capture IgM EIA detected IgM in 51% of serum samples compared to 9% to 24% using three commercial IgM assays. The rRT-PCR that targeted the nucleoprotein gene increased RNA detection by 14% compared to that obtained with the original protocol. The ability to detect IgM improved when serum was collected 3 days or more after symptom onset, whereas sensitivity of RNA detection by rRT-PCR declined when buccal swabs were collected later than 2 days after onset. Selection of testing methods and timing of sample collection are important factors in the ability to confirm infection among vaccinated persons. These results reinforce the need to use virus detection assays in addition to serologic tests.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Sensitivity of Laboratory Diagnostic Methods from a Well-Characterized Outbreak of Mumps in New York City in 2009

Rota

Rosen

Doll

et al. 2013

Clin. Vaccine Immunol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The critical time appears to be 3-4 days [4,10]. When symptoms are present for less than 3-4 days PCR should be the test of choice, although PCR may be positive till 9 days after onset of symptoms [1],after this period IgM determination should be preferred.…”

Section: What Would We Be a Rational Approach For The Laboratory Diagmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When symptoms are present for less than 3-4 days PCR should be the test of choice, although PCR may be positive till 9 days after onset of symptoms [1],after this period IgM determination should be preferred. The sensitivity of IgM is reported to be even higher if a convalescent serum is available taken 10 days after initial clinical presentation [10]. Despite frequently highly suggestive clinical presentation even in outbreak context, the overall rarity of mumps forces clinicians to seek for the laboratory confirmation.…”

Section: What Would We Be a Rational Approach For The Laboratory Diagmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confusing mumps serology during an outbreak

Seaux

Coucke

Decruyenaere

et al. 2015

Journal of Clinical Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The virus specific IgM antibody can be measured by direct or indirect ELISA techniques 7-10 days after the onset of symptoms [41,51]. The sensitivity of IgM testing is variable, being as low as 24-51% in one study of five ELISA assays [51]. In such settings, a four-fold rise in serum IgG titres between acute and convalescent phases of the virus is a useful indicator of active infection [43].…”

Section: Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

The increasing incidence of mumps orchitis: a comprehensive review

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been a recent increase in mumps orchitis among pubertal and postpubertal males. These outbreaks can be attributed to a reduction in the uptake of measles‐mumps‐rubella (MMR) vaccine during the early to mid‐1990s in children who have now matured. The mumps virus is commonly associated with extra‐salivary complications. Unvaccinated postpubertal males diagnosed with mumps virus frequently develop complications such as mumps orchitis. Therefore, it is important that urologists are familiar with the diagnosis, treatment and complications of this condition. Here we review the epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic methods, treatment options and complications of mumps orchitis, as a complication of mumps virus, with particular emphasis on testicular atrophy, subfertility and infertility.

show abstract

Comparison of mumps-IgM ELISAs in acute infection

Cited by 43 publications

References 14 publications

Comparison of the Sensitivity of Laboratory Diagnostic Methods from a Well-Characterized Outbreak of Mumps in New York City in 2009

Comparison of the Sensitivity of Laboratory Diagnostic Methods from a Well-Characterized Outbreak of Mumps in New York City in 2009

Confusing mumps serology during an outbreak

The increasing incidence of mumps orchitis: a comprehensive review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About