Serological Response to Rubella Revaccination

Determining rubella immunity in pregnant Alberta women 2009–2012

“…Therefore, those women with antibodies <10 IU/mL may still be protected, particularly as no indigenous cases of rubella have been reported in Canada since 2005, and the overall incidence of rubella in Canada has decreased from 0.2 to 0.04 per 100,000 population between 1998 and 2011 [5]. Additional studies have shown that individuals with detectable antibody levels (<15 IU/mL) produce a secondary immune response following revaccination and that viremia rarely occurs [31][32][33][34], suggesting that these levels are sufficient to prevent viral infection. In light of these epidemiological studies, the NCCLS Rubella Subcommittee decreased the 15 IU/mL cutoff to 10 IU/mL in 1992 [35]; however since 1992, the cutoffs have not been re-evaluated by the subcommittee.…”

Maturation of immunoglobulin G avidity after rubella vaccination studied by an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (Avidity‐ELISA) and by haemolysis typing

“…This result contrasts with the high frequency (> 10%) of prolonged (1.5 years) IgM responses, a phenomenon that was also previously observed [Al-Nakib et al, 1975;Meegan et al, 1983;Mortimer et al, 1984;Storch and Myers, 1984;OShea et al, 19851. On the other hand, all the "vaccination reinfections" remained IgM-negative, as in a study employing a sensitive M-antibody capture radioimmunoassay [Mortimer et al, 19841. The antibody response to the attenuated rubella virus vaccines is weaker and more slowly evolving than the response to natural infection [Ogra et al, 1971;Serdula et al, 1974;Grillner, 1975;Perkins, 19851. Considering the similarity of the rate of occurrence of low-avidity IgG in the avidity-ELISA technique after vaccination and after natural rubella, it was interesting to observe that the soft haemolysis seemed to occur less regularly here, especially in the Cendehill group, than after natural rubella [Hedman et al, 19861. Such a cautious conclusion is supported by a recent study in which the serum samples obtained from 34 patients within 8 weeks from the onset of natural rubella, and…”

How to determine protective immunity in the post-vaccine era

“…In 1985, the Rubella Subcommittee of the National Committee on Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) set a level of >15 IU/ ml for rubella IgG antibodies as the indicator of immunity. 8 In light of further epidemiological investigations, and additional studies indicating that individuals with low levels of antibody (<15 IU/ml) produced a secondary immune response upon vaccine challenge rather than a primary immune response, 1,[9][10][11] these cut offs were revised by the Subcommittee from 15 IU/ml to 10 IU/ml in 1992. 12 However, since 1992, the rubella cutoffs have not been assessed.…”