Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii, Rubella virus and Cytomegalovirus among pregnant women and the importance of avidity assays.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii (T. gondii), Rubella virus, and Cytomegalovirus (CMV) among pregnant women in Izmir, Turkey. METHODS: Medical records of pregnant women attending Izmir Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey between January 2014 and January 2016 were analyzed in this retrospective cross-sectional study. The 7513 T. gondii IgM/IgG results, 7189 Rubella IgM/IgG results, 906 CMV IgM/IgG results and 146 avidity test results were evaluated. Specific IgM and IgG antibodies were detected by an automated chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay method. Immunoglobulin G avidity tests were performed using a multiparametric immunoassay system. RESULTS: The rates of IgG positivity for T. gondii was 32.3%, Rubella virus 93.5%, and CMV 98.9%. Immunoglobulin M antibodies were found to be positive in 138 (1.9%) cases for T. gondii, 88 (1.2%) cases for Rubella, and 14 (1.5%) cases for CMV. Avidity tests were ordered from 146 of 218 patients who were found both IgM and IgG positive. Among 146 patients, 6 patients had a low avidity index (all for T. gondii), 11 patients showed borderline avidity, and 129 patients revealed high avidity. CONCLUSION: In our region, whereas the rates of IgG positivity for Rubella and CMV are high, most pregnant women were susceptible to T. gondii infections. In order to enhance the reliability of the serological diagnosis, avidity tests should be performed in all IgM positivities detected together with IgG positivity.

Application of hepatitis serology testing algorithms to assess inappropriate laboratory utilization.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Many studies pointed out inappropriate utilization of laboratory caused by excessive amounts of tests ordered by doctors. To prevent and to eliminate the ordering of unhelpful tests, introducing diagnostic algorithms, which are also a suitable practice for application to hepatitis serology, have been suggested. This study aimed to determine inappropriate test ordering rates with respect to the commonly approved algorithms for serological diagnosis of viral hepatitis. METHODS: To assess the number of inappropriate test orders, laboratory records of samples sent for hepatitis A, B, and D serology were reviewed and evaluated retrospectively with respect to algorithms for serological diagnosis of viral hepatitis. Orders including serological marker groups with inadequate clinical information to determine whether or not the order was inappropriate were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: Application of diagnostic algorithms showed that 50% of anti-HAV IgM and anti-HAV total; 12.7% of anti-HBs, 12.7% of anti-HBc total, 78.5% of anti-HBc IgM, 87.3% of HBe Ag, 78.8% of anti-HBe, 58.7% of anti-HD total orders were made inappropriately. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides information for inappropriate laboratory utilization for hepatitis serology testing and we suggest to use diagnostic algorithms applied by the serology laboratory to decrease the rate of unhelpful test orders.