Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of two automated immunoassays for the determination of Puumalavirus IgM and IgG.
Muyldermans, Astrid; Lagrou, Katrien; Patteet, Sofie; Van Esbroeck, Marjan; Van Ranst, Marc; Saegeman, Veroniek.
Afiliação
  • Muyldermans A; National Reference Center for Hantavirus, Department of Laboratory Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: astrid.muyldermans@student.kuleuven.be.
  • Lagrou K; National Reference Center for Hantavirus, Department of Laboratory Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
  • Patteet S; National Reference Center for Hantavirus, Department of Laboratory Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
  • Van Esbroeck M; Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp, Kronenburgstraat 43/3, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium.
  • Van Ranst M; National Reference Center for Hantavirus, Department of Laboratory Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
  • Saegeman V; National Reference Center for Hantavirus, Department of Laboratory Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
J Clin Virol ; 60(2): 165-7, 2014 Jun.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24713176
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Puumala virus (PUUV), a member of the genus hantavirus, can cause nephropathia epidemica, a mild form of haemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome. The method of choice for the serodiagnosis of hantavirus infections are enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs).

OBJECTIVES:

Two commercially available PUUV ELISA kits were compared Hantavirus (Puumala) IgM/IgG ELISA (Progen, Heidelberg, Germany) and PUUMALA IgM and IgG EIA AutoM (Reagena, Toivala, Finland). STUDY

DESIGN:

The sensitivity of the ELISA kits was evaluated with a panel of 55 serum samples from patients with an acute (n=27) or past (n=28) infection based on Progen or Reagena. A panel of 56 serum samples was composed to evaluate the specificity samples with potentially false positive Progen Puumala IgM results (n=12), seronegative samples for Puumala IgG/IgM with Progen (n=20), and potentially cross reacting samples (n=24). Discrepancies between the two assays were resolved with strip immunoblot. As measure of agreement between Progen and Reagena results, Cohen kappa coefficient was calculated.

RESULTS:

Reagena showed a higher specificity (IgM 100%, IgG 100%) than Progen Puumala (IgM 73.21%, IgG 100%). However, Reagena showed a slightly lower sensitivity (IgM 96.15%, IgG 97.78%) compared with Progen (IgM 100%, IgG 100%). Substantial agreement with a Cohen kappa of 0.67 and 0.76 was found between the two assays for Puumala IgM and IgG respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

This study showed a higher specificity of Reagena in comparison to Progen with a lower sensitivity, probably caused by selection bias. In spite of Reagena's lower sensitivity, no acute infection was missed with this assay.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Imunoglobulina G / Imunoglobulina M / Virus Puumala / Testes Diagnósticos de Rotina / Automação Laboratorial / Febre Hemorrágica com Síndrome Renal / Anticorpos Antivirais Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2014 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Imunoglobulina G / Imunoglobulina M / Virus Puumala / Testes Diagnósticos de Rotina / Automação Laboratorial / Febre Hemorrágica com Síndrome Renal / Anticorpos Antivirais Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2014 Tipo de documento: Article