2017
DOI: 10.3201/eid2309.162043
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of 5 Commercially Available Zika Virus Immunoassays

Abstract: Because of the global spread of Zika virus, accurate and high-throughput diagnostic immunoassays are needed. We compared the sensitivity and specificity of 5 commercially available Zika virus serologic assays to the recommended protocol of Zika virus IgM-capture ELISA and plaque-reduction neutralization tests. Most commercial immunoassays showed low sensitivity, which can be increased.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

7
57
3
3

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 75 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
7
57
3
3
Order By: Relevance
“…To date, there are only three serological assays for ZIKV approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, under an emergency use authorization (56), and a few other commercial tests are available in countries outside the United States or for research purposes. These assays use either NS1, recombinant E, or another, unspecified ZIKV antigen (57). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention MAC (IgM) ELISA exhibits well-publicized limitations, including false-negative results (58), false-positive results due to cross-reactive antibody from DENV infection (59), and persistence of ZIKV IgM beyond the previously presumed 12-week window (60).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To date, there are only three serological assays for ZIKV approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, under an emergency use authorization (56), and a few other commercial tests are available in countries outside the United States or for research purposes. These assays use either NS1, recombinant E, or another, unspecified ZIKV antigen (57). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention MAC (IgM) ELISA exhibits well-publicized limitations, including false-negative results (58), false-positive results due to cross-reactive antibody from DENV infection (59), and persistence of ZIKV IgM beyond the previously presumed 12-week window (60).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous publications suggested a lower sensitivity of detecting anti-NS1 antibodies, possibly due to their relatively low abundance compared to anti-prM/E antibody in human sera. 15, 22 Our study showed that depletion of anti-prM/E antibodies enhances the sensitivity of NS1 antibody detection. Based on the testing algorithm developed in this study, FP-VLP-MAC-ELISA and NS1-MAC-ELISA had similar PPV and NPV (Table 2).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 68%
“…8 Furthermore, the low sensitivity in detecting anti-NS1 antibodies and the discrepancy in determining sero-positivity between detecting anti-E and anti-NS1 antibodies were continuously reported. 14, 15 Serological cross-reactivity between flaviviruses is common and several recent publications have shown the global efforts trying to resolve this issue to determine the status of ZIKV infection. 13, 16, 17, 18 Although a validated, virus specific sero-diagnostic test is urgently needed, a rigorous evaluation of the assay is required to ensure optimal patient care and accurate epidemiologic surveillance in regions with active transmission of both DENV and ZIKV.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ZIKV, first identified in a forest in Uganda, has recently spread to Asia, Pacific islands, and the American continent, causing serious concern for microcephaly in fetuses [24]. Mostly transmitted in urban environments by Aedes aegypti and possibly Aedes albopictus , it has been found in many species of mosquitoes, mostly in Aedes species (31 spp.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%