Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology logoLink to Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology
. 1994;1(4):188–192. doi: 10.1155/S1064744994000062

Comparison of Five Methods for the Determination of Rubella Immunity

Robert L Sautter 1,5,✉, Arthur E Crist Jr 2, Lynn M Johnson 3, William D LeBar 4
PMCID: PMC2364334  PMID: 18475343

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of commonly used methods for the detection of rubella immunity, especially the fully automated IMx assay.

Methods: A total of 190 sera (101 immune and 89 non-immune) submitted to Harrisburg Hospital or Polyclinic Medical Center for the determination of rubella immunity were tested by enzyme immunoassay (IMx and Rubazyme, Abbott Diagnostic Laboratories, North Chicago, IL), indirect immunofluorescence (FIAX, Whittaker Bioproducts, Walkersville, MD), and latex agglutination (Rubascan, Becton Dickinson Microbiology Systems, Cockeysville, MD, and Rubalex, Wellcome Diagnostics, Research Triangle Park, NC). Specimens were frozen at –30℃ until the study was initiated. Each of the assays was performed according to the manufacturers' specifications. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values for each assay were calculated using a consensus result of the 5 methods tested.

Results: The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, respectively, of the test systems were as follows: IMx, 96%, 97%, and 96%; Rubazyme, 100%, 99%, and 99%; Rubascan, 100%, 98%, and 99%; Rubalex, 99%, 97%, and 98%; and FIAX 90%, 100%, and 95%. False negative reactions were seen with the FIAX system.

Conclusions: The IMx system, a new “walk away” system from Abbott Diagnostic Laboratories and the Rubazyme systems performed well; however the latex agglutination tests proved to be the most rapid and convenient methods for screening sera for the presence of rubella immunity.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (383.2 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Abbott G. G., Safford J. W., MacDonald R. G., Craine M. C., Applegren R. R. Development of automated immunoassays for immune status screening and serodiagnosis of rubella virus infection. J Virol Methods. 1990 Feb;27(2):227–239. doi: 10.1016/0166-0934(90)90139-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Castellano G. A., Madden D. L., Hazzard G. T., Cleghorn C. S., Vails D. V., Ley A. C., Tzan N. R., Sever J. L. Evaluation of commercially available diagnostic test kits for rubella. J Infect Dis. 1981 Apr;143(4):578–584. doi: 10.1093/infdis/143.4.578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chernesky M. A., DeLong D. J., Mahony J. B., Castriciano S. Differences in antibody responses with rapid agglutination tests for the detection of rubella antibodies. J Clin Microbiol. 1986 Apr;23(4):772–776. doi: 10.1128/jcm.23.4.772-776.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cremer N. E., Hagens S. J., Cossen C. Comparison of the hemagglutination inhibition test and an indirect fluorescent-antibody test for detection of antibody to rubella virus in human sera. J Clin Microbiol. 1980 Jun;11(6):746–747. doi: 10.1128/jcm.11.6.746-747.1980. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fayram S. L., Akin S., Aarnaes S. L., Peterson E. M., de la Maza L. M. Determination of immune status in patients with low antibody titers for rubella virus. J Clin Microbiol. 1987 Jan;25(1):178–180. doi: 10.1128/jcm.25.1.178-180.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fayram S. L., Nakasone A., Aarnaes S., Zartarian M., Peterson E. M., de la Maza L. M. Fluorescence immunoassay and passive latex agglutination as alternatives to hemagglutination inhibition for determining rubella immune status. J Clin Microbiol. 1983 Apr;17(4):685–688. doi: 10.1128/jcm.17.4.685-688.1983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Freeman S., Clark L., Dumas N. Evaluation of a latex agglutination test for detection of antibodies to rubella virus in selected sera. J Clin Microbiol. 1983 Jul;18(1):197–198. doi: 10.1128/jcm.18.1.197-198.1983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Grangeot-Keros L., Badur S., Pons J. C., Duthu S., Pillot J. Use of in vivo challenge to assess rubella immunity determined by haemagglutination inhibition and latex agglutination. Res Virol. 1989 Sep-Oct;140(5):437–442. doi: 10.1016/s0923-2516(89)80121-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hossain A., Ramia S., Bakir T. M. Comparison of haemagglutination test, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and indirect immunofluorescence antibody test for determination of rubella immune status. J Trop Med Hyg. 1988 Aug;91(4):216–221. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kleeman K. T., Kiefer D. J., Halbert S. P. Rubella antibodies detected by several commercial immunoassays in hemagglutination inhibition-negative sera. J Clin Microbiol. 1983 Nov;18(5):1131–1137. doi: 10.1128/jcm.18.5.1131-1137.1983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. León P., de Ory F., Domingo C., López J. A., Echevarría J. M. Evaluation of a latex agglutination test for screening antibodies to rubella virus. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1988 Apr;7(2):196–199. doi: 10.1007/BF01963081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Schaefer L. E., Dyke J. W., Meglio F. D., Murray P. R., Crafts W., Niles A. C. Evaluation of microparticle enzyme immunoassays for immunoglobulins G and M to rubella virus and Toxoplasma gondii on the Abbott IMx automated analyzer. J Clin Microbiol. 1989 Nov;27(11):2410–2413. doi: 10.1128/jcm.27.11.2410-2413.1989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Simor A. E., Chua R., Low D. E. Evaluation of a new latex test and a new enzyme immunoassay for determination of rubella immunity. J Clin Microbiol. 1988 Aug;26(8):1582–1583. doi: 10.1128/jcm.26.8.1582-1583.1988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Skurrie I. J., Head J. L., Garland S. M. Detection of rubella-specific immunoglobulin G: comparison of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and an automated microparticle enzyme immunoassay (IMx). J Clin Microbiol. 1991 Aug;29(8):1752–1753. doi: 10.1128/jcm.29.8.1752-1753.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Steece R. S., Talley M. S., Skeels M. R., Lanier G. A. Comparison of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, hemagglutination inhibition, and passive latex agglutination for determination of rubella immune status. J Clin Microbiol. 1985 Jan;21(1):140–142. doi: 10.1128/jcm.21.1.140-142.1985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Storch G. A., Myers N. Latex-agglutination test for rubella antibody: validity of positive results assessed by response to immunization and comparison with other tests. J Infect Dis. 1984 Mar;149(3):459–464. doi: 10.1093/infdis/149.3.459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Vänänen P., Häivä V. M., Koskela P., Meurman O. Comparison of a simple latex agglutination test with hemolysis-in-gel, hemagglutination inhibition, and radioimmunoassay for detection of rubella virus antibodies. J Clin Microbiol. 1985 May;21(5):793–795. doi: 10.1128/jcm.21.5.793-795.1985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Zartarian M. V., Friedly G., Peterson E. M., de la Maza L. M. Detection of rubella antibodies by hemagglutination inhibition, indirect fluorescent-antibody test, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. J Clin Microbiol. 1981 Dec;14(6):640–645. doi: 10.1128/jcm.14.6.640-645.1981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES