False-negative serology in patients with acute parvovirus B19 infection

Bredl, Simon; Plentz, Annelie; Wenzel, Jürgen J.; Pfister, Heiko; Möst, Johannes; Modrow, Susanne

doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2011.03.012

Cited by 45 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The serologic test for parvovirus B19‐specific antibodies is most useful for immunocompetent patients . However, serology might be falsely negative in highly viremic patients with acute parvovirus B19 infection, because antibodies can be bound to viral particles . In addition, in immunocompromised patients, the serologic test should be interpreted prudently, because of inadequate or delayed antibody‐mediated immune response in an immunocompromised setting .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk factors and long‐term outcomes of parvovirus B19 infection in kidney transplant patients

Baek

Kim

Yang

et al. 2017

Transplant Infectious Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk factors and long‐term outcomes of parvovirus B19 infection in kidney transplant patients

Baek

Kim

Yang

et al. 2017

Transplant Infectious Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For this, the samples showing markers of B19V recent infections were classified as recent infections if showed positive PCR and IgM (panel i), as window samples if only PCR positive result was obtained (panel ii), as coming from a prolonged PCR detection accompanied by a negative IgM result (panel iii), and as having specific B19V IgM in absence of nucleic acid detection (panel iv). Accordingly, only samples included in panel i (PCR and B19V IgM positive) and panel ii (PCR positive, IgM negative) can be unequivocally classified as B19V recent infections, considering that negative IgM result in samples from panel ii could be caused by the presence of specific antibodies‐B19V immunocomplexes, as has been described previously . Samples from panel iv, characterized as having B19V IgM in the absence of PCR could either represent a clinically inappropriate, due to a polyclonal stimulation of B lymphocytes, or an analytically correct, clinically prolonged response, or a PCR false negative.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Efficient etiologic characterization of B19V infections can be achieved by direct assays, such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), in addition to serology assays that detect IgM in serum or plasma. Combined detection of B19V‐DNA and antibodies improves the sensitivity of viral diagnosis . The use of multiplex PCR, which includes detection of other viruses such as rubella and measles, is especially suitable for differential diagnosis .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Ory

Minguito

Echevarrı́a

et al. 2013

APMIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…It is possible that some (approximately 30-50%) of the IgM/IgG-negative samples with neopterin positivity and high B19V DNA load could be false-negatives due to the formation of immunocomplexes with B19V particles [42]. However, this effect would have a minor impact on the estimated hypothetical curve of infection progression since, at most, only one of the two neopterin-positive / IgM-negative samples in the range of 10 12 IU/ml titer would be affected.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of Markers of the Progression of Human Parvovirus B19 Infection in Virus DNA-Positive Plasma Samples

Bonjoch¹,

Obispo²,

Alemany³

et al. 2015

Transfus Med Hemother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Accurate characterization of the infection stage in parvovirus B19(B19V)-positive plasma donations would help establish the donation deferral period to contribute to a safe fractionation pool of plasma. Methods: Viral DNA load of 74 B19V DNA-positive plasma samples from whole blood donations was determined by titration using nucleic acid testing. Markers of cellular (neopterin) and humoral (B19V-specific IgM and IgG) immune response were determined by ELISA in 32 B19V DNA-positive samples and in 13 B19V DNA-negative samples. The infection progression profile was estimated according to B19V DNA load and the presence of immune response markers. Results: B19V DNA load in the 74 samples was 10⁶-10¹³ IU/ml. The distribution of 14 out of 32 selected B19V DNA-positive samples plus 2 B19V DNA-negative samples with no immune response marker followed along an upward curve according to B19V DNA load. After the peak, the distribution of 18 immune marker-positive samples followed along a downward curve according to their B19V DNA load and was grouped as follows: neopterin (n = 4), neopterin+ IgM (n = 8), neopterin + IgM + IgG (n = 3), IgM + IgG (n = 2), IgM (n = 1). There were 11 B19V DNA-negative IgG-positive samples. Conclusion: This study of B19V-DNA load and levels of neopterin, IgM, and IgG allows for reliable characterization and distribution into the different stages of B19V infection.

show abstract

False-negative serology in patients with acute parvovirus B19 infection

Cited by 45 publications

References 38 publications

Risk factors and long‐term outcomes of parvovirus B19 infection in kidney transplant patients

Risk factors and long‐term outcomes of parvovirus B19 infection in kidney transplant patients

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

Characterization of Markers of the Progression of Human Parvovirus B19 Infection in Virus DNA-Positive Plasma Samples

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About