Skip to main content
. 2017 Nov 27;55(12):3395–3404. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01106-17

TABLE 6.

Comparison of results between Toxo IgM Architect and ICT from 50 sera (corresponding to 24 women) with seroconversion and 33 sera with nonspecific IgMa

No. of sera tested Architect IgM (AU/ml; range) ICT (% positive) IgM reference technique [Platelia or ISAgA (range)] Architect IgG (IU/ml) Conclusion
Proved seroconversion (n = 50) 98
    1 (1 M) 0.34 Neg Neg; 1 ISAgA (5) 0 Beginning of IgM increasing
    2 (2 M) 0.39–0.39 Pos Pos; 2 ISAgA (9–9) <0.2 Beginning of IgM increasing
    14 (2 M, 12 SE) 0.78–9.04 Pos Pos; 2 ISAgA (10–12); 12 Platelia (2.84–9.87) <1.5 IgM positive (all techniques)
    33 (19 M, 14SE) 0.55–20.61 Pos Pos; 19 ISAgA (9–12); 14 Platelia (1.18–9.38) ≥1.5 Proved seroconversion
No IgG seroconversion (n = 33), no specific IgM 6
    8 (8 SE) 0.30–0.49 Neg Neg; 8 Platelia (0.10–0.78) <0.2 Absence of IgM
    2 (2 SE) 0.5–0.59 Neg Neg; 2 Platelia (0.45–0.65) <0.2 Absence of IgM
    10 (4 M, 6 SE) 0.63–1.08 Neg Neg; 4 ISAgA (0–2); 6 Platelia (0.23–0.78) <0.2 False-positive IgM Architect
    11 (7 M, 4 SE) 0.76–1.80 Neg Pos; 7 ISAgA (9–11); 4 Platelia (1.30–2.17) <0.2 False-positive IgM Architect and reference technique
    2 (2 SE) 0.69–3.96 Pos Pos; 2 Platelia (1.23–2.58) 1, 0.2 False-positive Architect, ICT, and reference technique
a

The following cutoffs were used: Architect IgM (Abbott Diagnostics, Wiesbaden, Germany), 0.5 to 0.6 AU/ml; Platelia Toxo IgM (Bio-Rad, Marne la Coquette, France), 0.8 to 1.0; ISAgA IgM (bioMérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France), 6 to 9.