This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Skendzel, L P Articles by Edson, D C Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Skendzel, L P Articles by Edson, D C

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

J Clin Microbiol. 1986 September; 24(3): 333-335

Latex agglutination test for rubella antibodies: report based on data from the College of American Pathologists surveys, 1983 to 1985.

ABSTRACT

In the College of American Pathologists (CAP) rubella survey program, 45% of laboratories rely on the latex agglutination (LA) card assay for detecting rubella immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies. By using CAP survey data over a 3-year period, we compared LA results with hemagglutination inhibition (HI) and enzyme immunoassay (EIA) results. EIA indices were used to classify results into three categories: nonimmune, EIA index of 0.300 or less; borderline, EIA index of 0.300 to 0.619; and immune, EIA index of 1.700 or greater. There was 91% or more agreement between LA, HI, and EIA for categories i and iii. In category ii, the response from LA users varied, depending on the level of antibody present in the survey samples; at an EIA index of 0.346, 81% reported nonimmune status, whereas at an EIA index of 0.619, 48% reported nonimmune status. Less than 10% indicated borderline status. In testing of samples in the same category, approximately 40%, using the HI method, reported titers of less than 1:8 (nonimmune status). Among EIA users, 97 to 99% regarded the specimens as nonimmune. On analysis of specimens in the borderline category, the LA test showed a pattern of sensitivity and specificity comparable to that reported with the HI technique, whereas the EIA method showed a greater degree of precision. The LA card assay provides a rapid screening test in which LA is read macroscopically, and the procedure differs considerably from the fully quantitative HI and EIA methods.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)