This Article Full Text 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 HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Butchko, A. R. Articles by Jordan, J. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Butchko, A. R. Articles by Jordan, J. A.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 2004, p. 3191-3195, Vol. 42, No. 7
0095-1137/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.7.3191-3195.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Comparison of Three Commercially Available Serologic Assays Used To Detect Human Parvovirus B19-Specific Immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG Antibodies in Sera of Pregnant Women

Allyson R. Butchko¹ and Jeanne A. Jordan^1,2*

Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh,¹ Magee-Women's Research Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213²

Received 5 January 2004/ Returned for modification 26 February 2004/ Accepted 3 April 2004

A split-sample study was conducted to evaluate the performances of three enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) utilizing one or more conformational antigens to detect human parvovirus B19 (B19V)-specific immunoglobulin M (IgM) or IgG in the sera of 198 pregnant women. We compared EIAs available from Biotrin International, Inc. (Dublin, Ireland), Medac Diagnostika (Wedel, Germany), and Mikrogen (Martinsried, Germany). Specimens with discordant results were analyzed further using an immunofluorescence assay (Biotrin). Equivocal data accounted for close to half of all the discrepant results for both IgM and IgG, with 7 of 15 discrepant results from the Medac and Mikrogen kits involving equivocal data and the Biotrin kit giving a single equivocal result. For each specimen, a consensus was established from the four test results if agreement occurred among at least three of four results. Overall, the highest percentage of agreement with the consensus results was seen when Biotrin kits were used; 194 (100%) of 194 and 194 (99.5%) of 195 results for IgM and IgG, respectively, agreed with the consensus results. When Medac kits were used, 189 (97.4%) of 194 and 191 (97.9%) of 195 results for IgM and IgG, respectively, agreed with the consensus, and when Mikrogen kits were used, 179 (92.3%) of 194 and 193 (99%) of 195 results for IgM and IgG, respectively, agreed with the consensus. Given the consensus results, the Medac EIA appeared to generate presumed false-positive results for IgM and the Mikrogen EIA appeared to generate presumed false-positive results for IgG and IgM. In summary, the Biotrin EIAs produced far fewer equivocal results than the other assays and results of the Biotrin EIAs agreed more often with the consensus results than did those of the other commercially available EIAs for detecting B19V-specific IgM and IgG antibodies.

---

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Magee-Women's Research Institute, 204 Craft Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Phone: (412) 641-4104. Fax: (412) 641-6156. E-mail: rsijaj{at}mwri.magee.edu.

---

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 2004, p. 3191-3195, Vol. 42, No. 7
0095-1137/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.7.3191-3195.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Wildig, J., Mueller, I., Kiniboro, B., Maraga, S., Siba, P., Cossart, Y. (2007). Seroprevalence of Antibodies to Parvovirus B19 among Children in Papua New Guinea. Am J Trop Med Hyg 77: 354-357 [Abstract] [Full Text]