Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Minireviews

Laboratory Diagnosis of Congenital Toxoplasmosis

Christelle Pomares, Jose G. Montoya
C. S. Kraft, Editor
Christelle Pomares
aPalo Alto Medical Foundation Serology Laboratory, National Reference Center for the Study and Diagnosis of Toxoplasmosis, Palo Alto, California, USA
bStanford University, Division of Infectious Diseases, Stanford, California, USA
cINSERM U1065, Centre Méditerranéen de Médecine Moléculaire, Toxines Microbiennes dans la Relation Hôte-Pathogènes, Nice, France
dService de Parasitologie-Mycologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Nice, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jose G. Montoya
aPalo Alto Medical Foundation Serology Laboratory, National Reference Center for the Study and Diagnosis of Toxoplasmosis, Palo Alto, California, USA
bStanford University, Division of Infectious Diseases, Stanford, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
C. S. Kraft
Emory University
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00487-16
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Recent studies have demonstrated that screening and treatment for toxoplasmosis during gestation result in a decrease of vertical transmission and clinical sequelae. Early treatment was associated with improved outcomes. Thus, laboratory methods should aim for early identification of infants with congenital toxoplasmosis (CT). Diagnostic approaches should include, at least, detection of Toxoplasma IgG, IgM, and IgA and a comprehensive review of maternal history, including the gestational age at which the mother was infected and treatment. Here, we review laboratory methods for the diagnosis of CT, with emphasis on serological tools. A diagnostic algorithm that takes into account maternal history is presented.

INTRODUCTION

In 1939, Wolf et al. (1) reported for the first time that the intracellular protozoan parasite Toxoplasma gondii was a pathogen for humans and that it was capable of causing congenital disease as well (1, 2). Following this major discovery, it was promptly recognized that the clinical spectrum of fetuses, newborns, and children congenitally infected with T. gondii could range widely from complete apparent normality to severe neurological and ocular disease and even death (3). It is now well accepted that congenital toxoplasmosis (CT) has a worldwide distribution; recently, the global annual incidence of CT was estimated to be 190,000 cases (95% confidence interval [CI], 179,000 to 206,300), translating into an enormous disease burden of 1.20 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.90) per annum (4). However, the morbidity and mortality associated with this disease is preventable, treatable, and reversible (3).

Effective anti-Toxoplasma treatment, when instituted as early as in utero during the gestational period, has been shown to significantly decrease mother to child transmission as well as to improve clinical outcomes (5–10). Thus, it is imperative that laboratory tests employed for the diagnosis of CT be sensitive, specific, and exhibit high predictive values in order to promptly identify fetuses and newborns that are likely to significantly benefit from treatment interventions. Here, we review serological tests that are currently available to clinicians for the diagnosis of CT. Additional methods, such PCR, histological stains, isolation of the parasite in mice, and brain imaging studies, and other general laboratory abnormalities associated with the disease are mentioned but are not reviewed in detail since they are beyond the scope of this review. In addition, the relevance of maternal history (e.g., gestational age at which the mother was infected and whether the mother received anti-Toxoplasma treatment or not) is incorporated in a diagnostic algorithm.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Congenital toxoplasmosis can occur when a woman acquires T. gondii infection for the first time during pregnancy or, more rarely, shortly before conception. Infection of the fetus occurs when the parasite crosses the hemato-placental barrier and reaches the fetus. The risk of transmission essentially varies with gestational age and whether the mother receives treatment or not (5–10). The overall risk of transmission in mothers who have been treated during gestation is around 30%. However, it varies significantly with the gestational age at which the treated mother acquired the infection, from 15% at 13 weeks, 44% at 26 weeks, and 71% at 36 weeks (10, 11). Less frequently, CT can also occur when women infected in the distant past and prior to gestation reactivate their latent infection due to significant immunosuppression.

The diagnosis of CT can be confirmed or excluded more accurately when comprehensive clinical and laboratory information on the mother and her offspring is readily available to treating physicians. This information significantly affects the interpretation and pretest probability of different laboratory tests (12, 13).

Ideally, it should be established first whether the mother is immunocompromised or immunocompetent and whether she belongs to one of the following three groups: (i) never infected with Toxoplasma and confirmed to remain seronegative 1 month after birth (no risk for CT), (ii) chronically infected—mother acquired her infection prior to gestation (no risk for CT unless she is immunocompromised), or (iii) acutely infected—mother acquired her infection during gestation or within 3 months prior to gestation (at risk for CT). For group 3, it is important to establish (or estimate) the month during gestation at which maternal infection was acquired and whether the mother received anti-Toxoplasma treatment (and if so, which drugs) since the sensitivity and interpretation of laboratory tests can be largely affected by these variables (14). For instance, the sensitivity of serological test results in newborns is lower in those born to mothers who acquired their infection early in gestation and/or received anti-toxoplasmosis treatment during gestation than it is in those born to mothers who acquired their infection late in gestation and/or did not receive treatment (14).

Information on the presence of clinical signs in the fetus and newborn may also be helpful in the interpretation and recommendations, for instance, regarding intervals for follow-up testing after birth or indication for additional tests (e.g., Toxoplasma PCR).

PRINCIPLES AND METHODS AVAILABLE FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF CONGENITAL TOXOPLASMOSIS

Several methods have been used for decades for the diagnosis of CT, including detection of Toxoplasma-specific humoral immune responses, amplification of Toxoplasma DNA, identification of Toxoplasma-specific antigen in tissues, and isolation of the parasite (Table 1) (15–17).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Principles and methods used for the diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis

Diagnosis of CT in the fetus.During gestation, the presence of the parasite in amniotic fluid (DNA amplification, microscopy, or isolation of the organism) and/or fetal tissues (DNA amplification, antigen staining, microscopy, or isolation of the organism) is diagnostic of CT (Table 1). The most commonly used and accepted laboratory method for the diagnosis of CT during gestation is the use of PCR in amniotic fluid, and a positive test result is diagnostic of CT.

Diagnosis of CT in newborns and infants.In the postnatal period, the gold standard to establish a diagnosis of CT is the persistence of Toxoplasma IgG by 12 months of age. Conversely, the standard to rule out the diagnosis is the decrease of Toxoplasma IgG titers until its disappearance at ≤12 months of age in the absence of treatment (Fig. 1).

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

Congenital toxoplasmosis diagnostic algorithm for testing and monitoring infants according to whether maternal antenatal screening and treatment was performed (a) or not (b). Cases in gray and white represent data and/or action before and after birth, respectively.

In the absence of comprehensive clinical history and previous Toxoplasma laboratory test results, diagnosis of CT after the first year of life is confounded by the possibility of the child acquiring infection in the postnatal period. For this reason, all reasonable efforts should be undertaken to diagnose or exclude CT during gestation or the first year of life (infant period).

The most common laboratory method utilized worldwide for the diagnosis of CT in newborns and infants is serological detection of various isotypes of Toxoplasma antibodies in peripheral blood (serum). Although laboratories vary on the choice of specific method to detect Toxoplasma-specific antibodies, Toxoplasma IgG, IgM, and IgA should always be tested since having a combination of IgM and IgA test results, in addition to IgG, has greater sensitivity than either test alone (13, 15–18).

Toxoplasma PCR testing in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), peripheral blood, and urine can be another laboratory tool that can be used for the early diagnosis of CT and is particularly helpful in regions where antenatal screening and treatment programs have not been implemented (19).

For Toxoplasma IgG detection, the dye test is the reference method and remains the gold standard. However, the dye test can only be performed in reference laboratories due to its dependence on the use of live parasites. Other methods that are more commonly used rely on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and ELISA-like assays, agglutination, and indirect immunofluorescence. Many ELISA and ELISA-like assays used for the detection of both Toxoplasma IgG and IgM use automated and closed systems that also allow sequential testing for the detection of IgG and IgM antibodies against other pathogens (17).

For Toxoplasma IgM detection, in addition to the same methods used for Toxoplasma IgG, the IgM immunosorbent agglutination assay (ISAGA) is used and is known for its overall higher sensitivity compared to ELISA and ELISA-like assays (e.g., 81.1% versus 64.8%) (20). The IgM ISAGA is considered to be the method of choice for the detection of Toxoplasma IgM in infants younger than 6 months of age (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Overview of sensitivity and specificity of Toxoplasma serological tests in the neonatal period

For Toxoplasma IgA detection, ELISAs are mostly available. However, IgA ISAGAs are also performed in a few laboratories (20, 21).

Although the use of Toxoplasma IgE was initially reported as promising in some studies, it became subsequently obvious that it did not have any value to the combinatorial power of IgM and IgA (22, 23).

During the postnatal period, the detection of Toxoplasma IgG is confounded by the fact that maternal IgG has been passively transferred across the placenta to the neonate. In addition, the detection of Toxoplasma IgM and IgA in the neonate can also be contaminated with some maternal Toxoplasma IgM during the first 5 days of life and with maternal Toxoplasma IgA during the first 10 days of life. To overcome this challenge, methods to compare maternal and infant IgG, IgM, and IgA profiles have been developed, such as Western blotting. Western blots depict several bands that represent the binding between patient IgG, IgM, or IgA against various known Toxoplasma-specific antigens. The principle is to compare these bands between serum samples from the mother and infant to detect, in cases of congenital toxoplasmosis, autonomous synthesis of antibodies in the infant's serum. This can be established by the presence of bands that are not present in the mother's serum or by bands that have greater intensity in the infant's serum than in the mother's serum. Western blotting has been shown to establish diagnosis up to 3 months earlier than conventional serological methods (24). The sensitivity of Western blotting in combination with conventional serological methods has been shown to be superior to Western blotting or conventional methods used alone. However, the interpretation of Western blots may be difficult and should not be performed after a certain age due to false-positive test results (e.g., for some kits, false-positive results are seen with Toxoplasma IgG and IgM Western blotting after 1 and 3 months of life, respectively) (17, 25, 26).

Most nonreference laboratories can perform the Toxoplasma IgG, IgM, and PCR tests. However, tests such as the IgM ISAGA, Western blotting, and isolation are only performed in reference laboratories and have been validated in infants. In combination with results from conventional tests, they yield a sensitivity that is greater than the sensitivity of each test alone (20, 23).

Few other methods have been described for the diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis. The enzyme-linked immunofiltration assay (ELIFA) is an alternative method to compare the immunological profile between mother and infant, but it is performed only in very few laboratories (20). The interferon gamma released after T-cell stimulation by T. gondii antigens has be proven to be useful for the diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis, but it is currently not commercially available (27). Detection and follow-up of Toxoplasma IgG in oral fluid have also been used to monitor infants with suspected congenital toxoplasmosis, and it is a promising diagnostic tool (28). In addition, brain imaging studies and retinal exams can also exhibit findings that are highly suggestive of the disease, and in the absence of alternative etiologies and proper clinical context, they can be diagnostic (Table 1).

OVERALL DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH

Congenital toxoplasmosis can be diagnosed during gestation and/or after birth in the postnatal period. The diagnostic approach to newborns and infants varies significantly depending on whether the mother was screened and treated during gestation and whether a diagnosis of fetal infection was attempted by amniocentesis. Routine prenatal screening and treatment programs have only been implemented in a few countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Norway, Uruguay, and some regions in Italy and Brazil). The clinicians managing newborns born in these regions benefit from having available information, such as maternal serological and amniotic fluid PCR test results, precise gestational age at which the mother was infected, and detailed anti-Toxoplasma treatment history.

In contrast, the vast majority of newborns worldwide, including those in the United States, are born in regions where such programs have not been implemented (23). The absence of or incomplete prenatal screening and treatment has been identified as an important risk factor for congenital toxoplasmosis (29).

DIFFERENCES IN THE DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH TO CT ACCORDING TO THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF MATERNAL SCREENING AND TREATMENT PROGRAMS

Some important differences are observed in the approach, performance, and utilization of laboratory methods for the diagnoses of CT between regions with Toxoplasma screening and treatment programs during gestation and those without (Fig. 1). The main objective of Toxoplasma maternal screening programs is to diagnose the acute infection during gestation as early as possible. Women who are at risk (Toxoplasma seronegative) are identified during their first prenatal visit and followed at intervals that vary with the program (3). This approach allows for the prompt initiation of treatment of the mothers who seroconvert and of fetuses that become infected. This strategy has been shown to decrease mother to child transmission and severe disease and death in the offspring (9). As a result, fetuses and infants in these regions are diagnosed and treated much earlier than in regions where these programs have not been implemented. An unintended consequence of the screening/treatment approach is that laboratory methods, such as serological and PCR tests, are less sensitive in these regions (12, 23). However, pediatricians and clinicians managing these newborns have immediate access to maternal information and serum, which are critical to the choice of laboratory methods for the diagnosis of CT. For instance, they have available information that is known to influence the choice and performance of laboratory tests, such as precise knowledge about the gestational age at which the mother was infected and whether anti-Toxoplasma treatment was received and, if so, what regimen.

In regions where screening programs are not implemented, critical information on the mother is usually not available. This lack of information often leads to unnecessary laboratory testing in infants who were not at risk of being infected and are later confirmed to be uninfected. In addition, treatment is delayed in newborns that are in fact infected (23). The absence of maternal treatment in regions without screening programs may explain why PCR is more commonly utilized for neonatal diagnosis in these regions since higher sensitivity in PCR assays is expected and has been observed (19, 23).

SIMILARITIES IN THE DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH TO CT ACCORDING TO THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF MATERNAL SCREENING AND TREATMENT PROGRAMS

The serological approach to the diagnosis of CT in regions with or without these programs is similar once it has been established that the newborn belongs to one of the following three categories (Fig. 1): (i) CT is not likely because mother and newborn are Toxoplasma seronegative, (ii) CT is not likely because the mother is chronically infected (the risk of CT is only present in newborns whose mothers are significantly immunocompromised), or (iii) CT is likely since mother was infected (or is suspected to have been infected) during gestation and/or newborn has clinical signs at birth. Mothers who are Toxoplasma seronegative during gestation and are confirmed to be so 1 month after birth are not at risk for CT. Therefore, serological follow-up in their newborns is not required. The reason to confirm the seronegative status of the mother 1 month after birth is to rule out the rare possibility that the mother may have been infected shortly before delivery.

Mothers who have been confirmed of having acquired the infection in the distant past and prior to pregnancy are not at risk of CT unless the mother is actively immunosuppressed during gestation (e.g., a mother with AIDS who reactivates her Toxoplasma infection or her CD4 count is below 200 cells/mm3). Newborns born to these mothers will have detectable Toxoplasma IgG transferred passively from the mother and do not require serological follow-up. However, in regions where maternal screening programs have not been implemented, certainty that the mother has been infected in the distant past and prior to gestation is often impossible. Frequently, the first serum available is obtained in the second trimester or later or at birth. In these situations, when the serological test results exhibit a positive Toxoplasma IgG and IgM, only reference laboratories, such as the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Toxoplasma Serology Laboratory (PAMF-TSL; http://www.pamf.org/Serology/), have serological assays—e.g., IgG dye test, IgM ELISA, Avidity, differential agglutination (acetone [AC]-fixed versus formalin [HS]-fixed tachyzoites) test (AC/HS test), and IgA and IgE ELISAs—that can attempt to establish that the mother was infected in the distant past and prior to gestation (30, 31).

Mothers who have been confirmed of having acquired the infection during pregnancy or shortly before gestation (e.g., within 3 months of conception) are at risk for CT. This risk can be reduced if treatment with spiramycin is initiated. In the United States, spiramycin is available at no cost only by pursuing an investigational new drug (IND) application through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In regions where screening programs have been implemented, the diagnosis of maternal infection acquired during gestation is ascertained by seroconversion. In regions without these programs, maternal serum is usually not available or is only available late in gestation or at birth when clinical signs suggestive of congenital infection have been revealed in the fetus, newborn, or infant. With these late serum samples, only testing at reference laboratories, such as PAMF-TSL, has the potential to determine whether mothers were likely to have been infected in the distant past and prior to gestation or during pregnancy. The aim of serological testing in newborns born to these mothers is to confirm, establish, or exclude the diagnosis of CT. In newborns with positive amniotic fluid PCR test results, serological testing and follow-up are still recommended in order to further confirm the diagnosis of CT and to have additional data in cases where the possibility of a false-positive PCR test result is raised. In newborns with negative amniotic fluid PCR test results, or those in whom amniocentesis was not performed, serological testing and follow-up is paramount as a potential diagnostic tool. A newborn serological panel comprised of Toxoplasma IgG, IgM ISAGA, and IgA should be performed regardless of whether the amniotic fluid PCR test was performed and its results. The initial serum should be obtained after 10 days of life in order to avoid misleading results due to potential contamination with maternal blood. Follow-up serum samples should be tested in parallel with the previous sample at 1 month, 2 months, and then every 2 months (Fig. 1). Each newborn born to a mother who has been confirmed of or is suspected to have been infected during gestation or shortly before conception must be followed up serologically until 12 months of age. The Toxoplasma IgG will decrease by half every month until its disappearance around month 6 or 7 in uninfected infants but will not disappear by 12 months of age in infected infants. In some congenitally infected infants, treatment with a pyrimethamine-sulfonamide combination can lead to negativization of the Toxoplasma IgG during follow-up, creating the false sense that the infant is not infected. However, in infected infants, discontinuation of the treatment is followed by a rebound in the Toxoplasma IgG. If IgG remains negative, assuming the infant is capable of producing IgG, the diagnosis of CT is excluded.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The laboratory diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis has benefit from various principles and methods (Table 1). Future research should address the cost and feasibility of detection of antibodies, DNA, and live parasite in different platforms and body compartments. For instance, simultaneous detection of multiple analytes in the same assay offers an attractive option for multiplex detection of Toxoplasma IgG, IgM, and IgA and of antibodies against other pathogens with the capacity to cause congenital infection (32, 33). The use of platforms with multiplex capacities can address cost, with the additional benefit that they may be extended to other infections. In addition, the feasibility of testing for antibodies in body compartments beyond serum, such as whole blood and saliva, can address cost and patient convenience (28). Lastly, public health authorities and national policies should address the need to fund and protect reference centers of excellence for the diagnosis and management of congenital infections since these infections may not be seen commonly in individual practices or medical centers but are a source of major morbidity and mortality to the fetus and to newborns.

  • Copyright © 2016 Pomares and Montoya.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Wolf A,
    2. Cowen D,
    3. Paige B
    . 1939. Human toxoplasmosis: occurrence in infants as an encephalomyelitis verification by transmission to animals. Science 89:226–227. doi:10.1126/science.89.2306.226.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Ferguson DJP
    . 2009. Toxoplasma gondii: 1908-2008, homage to Nicolle, Manceaux and Splendore. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 104:133–148. doi:10.1590/S0074-02762009000200003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    1. Peyron F,
    2. Wallon M,
    3. Kieffer F,
    4. Garweg JG
    . 2015. Toxoplasmosis, p. 949–1042. In Wilson CB, Nizet V, Maldonado Y, Remington JS, Klein JO (ed), Remington and Klein's infectious diseases of the fetus and newborn infant. Elsevier Health Sciences, Oxford, United Kingdom.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Torgerson PR,
    2. Mastroiacovo P
    . 2013. The global burden of congenital toxoplasmosis: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ 91:501–508. doi:10.2471/BLT.12.111732.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Cortina-Borja M,
    2. Tan HK,
    3. Wallon M,
    4. Paul M,
    5. Prusa A,
    6. Buffolano W,
    7. Malm G,
    8. Salt A,
    9. Freeman K,
    10. Petersen E,
    11. Gilbert RE
    , European Multicentre Study on Congenital Toxoplasmosis (EMSCOT). 2010. Prenatal treatment for serious neurological sequelae of congenital toxoplasmosis: an observational prospective cohort study. PLoS Med 7:e1000351. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000351.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Hotop A,
    2. Hlobil H,
    3. Gross U
    . 2012. Efficacy of rapid treatment initiation following primary Toxoplasma gondii infection during pregnancy. Clin Infect Dis 54:1545–1552. doi:10.1093/cid/cis234.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Kieffer F,
    2. Wallon M,
    3. Garcia P,
    4. Thulliez P,
    5. Peyron F,
    6. Franck J
    . 2008. Risk factors for retinochoroiditis during the first 2 years of life in infants with treated congenital toxoplasmosis. Pediatr Infect Dis J 27:27–32. doi:10.1097/INF.0b013e318134286d.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    1. Prusa A-R,
    2. Kasper DC,
    3. Pollak A,
    4. Gleiss A,
    5. Waldhoer T,
    6. Hayde M
    . 2015. The Austrian toxoplasmosis register, 1992-2008. Clin Infect Dis 60:e4–e10. doi:10.1093/cid/ciu724.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Wallon M,
    2. Peyron F,
    3. Cornu C,
    4. Vinault S,
    5. Abrahamowicz M,
    6. Kopp CB,
    7. Binquet C
    . 2013. Congenital Toxoplasma infection: monthly prenatal screening decreases transmission rate and improves clinical outcome at age 3 years. Clin Infect Dis 56:1223–1231. doi:10.1093/cid/cit032.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. SYROCOT (Systematic Review on Congenital Toxoplasmosis) Study Group,
    2. Thiébaut R,
    3. Leproust S,
    4. Chêne G,
    5. Gilbert R
    . 2007. Effectiveness of prenatal treatment for congenital toxoplasmosis: a meta-analysis of individual patients' data. Lancet 369:115–122. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60072-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    1. Bessières MH,
    2. Berrebi A,
    3. Rolland M,
    4. Bloom MC,
    5. Roques C,
    6. Cassaing S,
    7. Courjault C,
    8. Séguéla JP
    . 2001. Neonatal screening for congenital toxoplasmosis in a cohort of 165 women infected during pregnancy and influence of in utero treatment on the results of neonatal tests. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 94:37–45. doi:10.1016/S0301-2115(00)00300-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Gilbert RE,
    2. Thalib L,
    3. Tan HK,
    4. Paul M,
    5. Wallon M,
    6. Petersen E
    , European Multicentre Study on Congenital Toxoplasmosis. 2007. Screening for congenital toxoplasmosis: accuracy of immunoglobulin M and immunoglobulin A tests after birth. J Med Screen 14:8–13. doi:10.1258/096914107780154440.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    1. Wallon M,
    2. Dunn D,
    3. Slimani D,
    4. Girault V,
    5. Gay-Andrieu F,
    6. Peyron F
    . 1999. Diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis at birth: what is the value of testing for IgM and IgA? Eur J Pediatr 158:645–649. doi:10.1007/s004310051168.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Naessens A,
    2. Jenum PA,
    3. Pollak A,
    4. Decoster A,
    5. Lappalainen M,
    6. Villena I,
    7. Lebech M,
    8. Stray-Pedersen B,
    9. Hayde M,
    10. Pinon JM,
    11. Petersen E,
    12. Foulon W
    . 1999. Diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis in the neonatal period: a multicenter evaluation. J Pediatr 135:714–719. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(99)70090-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    1. Montoya JG
    . 2002. Laboratory diagnosis of Toxoplasma gondii infection and toxoplasmosis. J Infect Dis 185(Suppl):S73–S82. doi:10.1086/338827.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    1. Villard O,
    2. Cimon B,
    3. L'Ollivier C,
    4. Fricker-Hidalgo H,
    5. Godineau N,
    6. Houze S,
    7. Paris L,
    8. Pelloux H,
    9. Villena I,
    10. Candolfi E
    . 2016. Serological diagnosis of Toxoplasma gondii infection: recommendations from the French National Reference Center for Toxoplasmosis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 84:22–33. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2015.09.009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Murat J-B,
    2. Hidalgo HF,
    3. Brenier-Pinchart M-P,
    4. Pelloux H
    . 2013. Human toxoplasmosis: which biological diagnostic tests are best suited to which clinical situations? Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 11:943–956. doi:10.1586/14787210.2013.825441.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Moncada PA,
    2. Montoya JG
    . 2012. Toxoplasmosis in the fetus and newborn: an update on prevalence, diagnosis and treatment. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 10:815–828. doi:10.1586/eri.12.58.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Olariu TR,
    2. Remington JS,
    3. Montoya JG
    . 2014. Polymerase chain reaction in cerebrospinal fluid for the diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis. Pediatr Infect Dis J 33:566–570. doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000000256.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Pinon JM,
    2. Dumon H,
    3. Chemla C,
    4. Franck J,
    5. Petersen E,
    6. Lebech M,
    7. Zufferey J,
    8. Bessieres MH,
    9. Marty P,
    10. Holliman R,
    11. Johnson J,
    12. Luyasu V,
    13. Lecolier B,
    14. Guy E,
    15. Joynson DH,
    16. Decoster A,
    17. Enders G,
    18. Pelloux H,
    19. Candolfi E
    . 2001. Strategy for diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis: evaluation of methods comparing mothers and newborns and standard methods for postnatal detection of immunoglobulin G, M, and A antibodies. J Clin Microbiol 39:2267–2271. doi:10.1128/JCM.39.6.2267-2271.2001.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Murat JB,
    2. Souvignet A,
    3. Fricker-Hidalgo H,
    4. Brenier-Pinchart MP,
    5. Bost-Bru C,
    6. Pelloux H
    . 2015. Assessment of the IgA immunosorbent agglutination assay for the diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis on a series of 145 toxoplasmic seroconversions. Clin Vaccine Immunol 22:456–458. doi:10.1128/CVI.00666-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Foudrinier F,
    2. Villena I,
    3. Jaussaud R,
    4. Aubert D,
    5. Chemla C,
    6. Martinot F,
    7. Pinon JM
    . 2003. Clinical value of specific immunoglobulin E detection by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in cases of acquired and congenital toxoplasmosis. J Clin Microbiol 41:1681–1686. doi:10.1128/JCM.41.4.1681-1686.2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Olariu TR,
    2. Remington JS,
    3. McLeod R,
    4. Alam A,
    5. Montoya JG
    . 2011. Severe congenital toxoplasmosis in the United States: clinical and serologic findings in untreated infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J 30:1056–1061. doi:10.1097/INF.0b013e3182343096.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. di Carlo P,
    2. Romano A,
    3. Casuccio A,
    4. Cillino S,
    5. Schimmenti MG,
    6. Mancuso G,
    7. la Chiusa S,
    8. Novara V,
    9. Ingrassia D,
    10. Li Vecchi V,
    11. Trizzino M,
    12. Titone L
    . 2011. Investigation and management of Toxoplasma gondii infection in pregnancy and infancy: a prospective study. Acta Pharmacol Sin 32:1063–1070. doi:10.1038/aps.2011.55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Robert-Gangneux F,
    2. Commerce V,
    3. Tourte-Schaefer C,
    4. Dupouy-Camet J
    . 1999. Performance of a Western blot assay to compare mother and newborn anti-Toxoplasma antibodies for the early neonatal diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 18:648–654. doi:10.1007/s100960050366.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    1. Machado AS,
    2. Andrade GMQ,
    3. Januário JN,
    4. Fernandes MD,
    5. Carneiro ACAV,
    6. Carneiro M,
    7. Carellos EVM,
    8. Romanelli RMC,
    9. Vasconcelos-Santos DV,
    10. Vitor RWA
    . 2010. IgG and IgM Western blot assay for diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 105:757–761.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Chapey E,
    2. Wallon M,
    3. L'Ollivier C,
    4. Piarroux R,
    5. Peyron F
    . 2015. Place of interferon-γ assay for diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis. Pediatr Infect Dis J 34:1407–1409. doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000000901.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Chapey E,
    2. Meroni V,
    3. Kieffer F,
    4. Bollani L,
    5. Ecochard R,
    6. Garcia P,
    7. Wallon M,
    8. Peyron F
    . 2015. Use of IgG in oral fluid to monitor infants with suspected congenital toxoplasmosis. Clin Vaccine Immunol 22:398–403. doi:10.1128/CVI.00552-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Campello Porto L,
    2. Duarte EC
    . 2012. Association between the risk of congenital toxoplasmosis and the classification of toxoplasmosis in pregnant women and prenatal treatment in Brazil, 1994-2009. Int J Infect Dis 16:e480–e486. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2012.01.016.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Dhakal R,
    2. Gajurel K,
    3. Pomares C,
    4. Talucod J,
    5. Press CJ,
    6. Montoya JG
    . 2015. Significance of a positive Toxoplasma immunoglobulin M test result in the United States. J Clin Microbiol 53:3601–3605. doi:10.1128/JCM.01663-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Montoya JG,
    2. Berry A,
    3. Rosso F,
    4. Remington JS
    . 2007. The differential agglutination test as a diagnostic aid in cases of toxoplasmic lymphadenitis. J Clin Microbiol 45:1463–1468. doi:10.1128/JCM.01781-06.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Zhang B,
    2. Jarrell JA,
    3. Price JV,
    4. Tabakman SM,
    5. Li Y,
    6. Gong M,
    7. Hong G,
    8. Feng J,
    9. Utz PJ,
    10. Dai H
    . 2013. An integrated peptide-antigen microarray on plasmonic gold films for sensitive human antibody profiling. PLoS One 8:e71043. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071043.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Zhang B,
    2. Kumar RB,
    3. Dai H,
    4. Feldman BJ
    . 2014. A plasmonic chip for biomarker discovery and diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. Nat Med 20:948–953. doi:10.1038/nm.3619.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.
    1. Naot Y,
    2. Desmonts G,
    3. Remington JS
    . 1981. IgM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay test for the diagnosis of congenital Toxoplasma infection. J Pediatr 98:32–36. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(81)80528-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. 35.
    1. Rodrigues IM,
    2. Costa TL,
    3. Avelar JB,
    4. Amaral WN,
    5. Castro AM,
    6. Avelino MM
    . 2014. Assessment of laboratory methods used in the diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis after maternal treatment with spiramycin in pregnancy. BMC Infect Dis 14:349. doi:10.1186/1471-2334-14-349.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.
    1. Gandilhon F,
    2. Peyle L,
    3. Wallon M,
    4. Peyron F,
    5. Mojon M
    . 1994. Value of a specific IgA assay on cord blood for the diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis. Serodiagn Immunother Infect Dis 6:17–20. doi:10.1016/0888-0786(94)90004-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.
    1. Bessières MH,
    2. Berrebi A,
    3. Cassaing S,
    4. Fillaux J,
    5. Cambus JP,
    6. Berry A,
    7. Assouline C,
    8. Ayoubi JM,
    9. Magnaval JF
    . 2009. Diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis: prenatal and neonatal evaluation of methods used in Toulouse University Hospital and incidence of congenital toxoplasmosis. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 104:389–392. doi:10.1590/S0074-02762009000200038.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. 38.
    1. L'Ollivier C,
    2. Wallon M,
    3. Faucher B,
    4. Piarroux R,
    5. Peyron F,
    6. Franck J
    . 2012. Comparison of mother and child antibodies that target high-molecular-mass Toxoplasma gondii antigens by immunoblotting improves neonatal diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis. Clin Vaccine Immunol 19:1326–1328. doi:10.1128/CVI.00060-12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text

Author Bios

Figure1

Christelle Pomares, M.D., Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in Parasitology at the Mycology Laboratory in the University Hospital of Nice (France) and in the research team Inserm 1065 C3M, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis (France). She attended medical school at the School of Medicine in Nice Sophia Antipolis University (France) and received her Ph.D. specialty of Communicable Diseases and Tropical Diseases at the Aix-Marseille University (France). She has been working on Toxoplasmosis since her fellowship with emphasis in serological diagnosis of Toxoplasma infection and its applicability to various patient populations. She is currently a Visiting Scholar at Stanford University Division of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine (Stanford, CA) working in the National Reference Laboratory for Toxoplasmosis in the United States directed by Dr. J. G. Montoya.

Figure2

Jose G. Montoya is originally from Cali, Colombia and completed his medical degree with honors at the Universidad del Valle. He trained in Internal Medicine at Tulane University in New Orleans. Following his residency, he completed his fellowship in Infectious Diseases at Stanford University in Palo Alto under the mentorship of Dr. Jack S. Remington. He is currently a Professor in the Department of Medicine and Division of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine (https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/Jose_Montoya). He is also the Director of the National Reference Laboratory for the Diagnosis and Management of Toxoplasmosis in the United States at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation in Palo Alto, California (http://www.pamf.org/Serology/). He is also the founder of the Immunocompromised Host Service (Infectious Diseases) at Stanford University Medical Center. He was elected Fellow of the American College of Physicians (FACP) in recognition of his commitment to the internal medicine community and Fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (FIDSA) for having achieved professional excellence in the field of Infectious Diseases. His research interests include toxoplasmosis, infectious complications in immunocompromised hosts, and chronic unexplained illnesses likely triggered or aggravated by infection.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Laboratory Diagnosis of Congenital Toxoplasmosis
Christelle Pomares, Jose G. Montoya
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Sep 2016, 54 (10) 2448-2454; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00487-16

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Laboratory Diagnosis of Congenital Toxoplasmosis
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Laboratory Diagnosis of Congenital Toxoplasmosis
Christelle Pomares, Jose G. Montoya
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Sep 2016, 54 (10) 2448-2454; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00487-16
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
    • PRINCIPLES AND METHODS AVAILABLE FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF CONGENITAL TOXOPLASMOSIS
    • OVERALL DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH
    • DIFFERENCES IN THE DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH TO CT ACCORDING TO THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF MATERNAL SCREENING AND TREATMENT PROGRAMS
    • SIMILARITIES IN THE DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH TO CT ACCORDING TO THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF MATERNAL SCREENING AND TREATMENT PROGRAMS
    • FUTURE DIRECTIONS
    • REFERENCES
    • Author Bios
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X