Comparison of Three Automated Immunoassay Methods for the Determination of Epstein-Barr Virus-Specific Immunoglobulin M

Abstract

In this study we compared the performances of three commercially available Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) immunoglobulin M (IgM) assays on highly automated immunoassay platforms: BioPlex 2200 (Bio-Rad Laboratories), Immulite 2000 (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics), and Liaison (DiaSorin). As a confirmatory method, immunoblotting was performed. The specificity of the three EBV IgM assays was evaluated by testing 293 selected sera from patients with various infectious and noninfectious diseases.

Performance of Two Commercially Available Automated Immunoassays for the Determination of Epstein-Barr Virus Serological Status

“…Another limitation of the study was that crossreactive sera collected during acute infections, such as CMV primary infection and hepatitis A virus, hepatitis E virus, and acute parvovirus B19 infections, or sera collected during the course of autoimmune diseases were not tested. These clinical situations could have an impact on the specificity of the VCA IgM assay (3,16). In addition, some of the sensitivity and specificity values presented in this study could appear to be relatively low compared to those determined in other studies, because we deliberately classified equivocal results as false-negative or false-positive results in the statistical analysis.…”

“…Nine of 186 (4.8%) samples referenced as primary infections were reported as seronegative with the Vidas assay, as were 5 of 186 (2.6%) with the Liaison assay. This was, in part, due to the fact that nearly one-third of the primary infections (3,4,24). Thus, in the case of a strong clinical suspicion of IM at the beginning of the disease, these results suggest that a serological follow-up can be helpful when the first serological result is entirely negative for EBV markers.…”

Evaluation of Four Commercial Systems for the Diagnosis of Epstein-Barr Virus Primary Infections

“…Thus, other factors, such as the different dilutions used for analysis, may justify these differences. Recently, the two CLIAs evaluated in this study were compared, along with the Bioplex test, and the performance characteristics between the two CLIAs were found to be comparable (2). Single positive results in IgM assays in acute cases of IM are possible, although this is very infrequent.…”

Performance of the Architect EBV Antibody Panel for Determination of Epstein-Barr Virus Infection Stage in Immunocompetent Adolescents and Young Adults with Clinical Suspicion of Infectious Mononucleosis

“…However, its presence in serological profiles compatible with primary infection should be interpreted with caution because false-positive results for this marker may occur during the course of other acute infections with overlapping clinical features (20), such as primary infections with CMV, HIV-1, parvovirus B19, rubella virus, or Toxoplasma gondii (21)(22)(23). The main pathogen interfering with the serological diagnosis of primary EBV infection is CMV.…”