Pitfalls of rubella serology while on the brink of elimination: evaluation of national data, Belgium, 2017.
epidemiology
rubella
serology
Journal
Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin
ISSN: 1560-7917
Titre abrégé: Euro Surveill
Pays: Sweden
ID NLM: 100887452
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
entrez:
21
5
2021
pubmed:
22
5
2021
medline:
29
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
BackgroundIn Belgium, rubella serology is frequently requested in women of childbearing age, despite high vaccination coverage and a near-absence of congenital rubella cases. Different test kits are available and should be standardised by an international standard preparation.AimTo analyse and compare rubella serology practices in Belgian laboratories.MethodsAs part of the mandatory External Quality Assessment programme for rubella serology in Belgium, the national public health institute, Sciensano, sent a voluntary questionnaire concerning anti-rubella IgM/IgG analyses in women aged 15 to 45 years in 2017 to 130 laboratories.ResultsThe questionnaire response rate was 83.8% (109/130). The majority of 169,494 IgG analyses were performed on Roche (55%), Abbott (17%) and Diasorin (13%) analysers. Not all laboratories used the proposed international cut-off of 10 IU/mL. Assumed median seroprevalence ranged from 76.3% with Liaison (Diasorin) to 96.3% with Modular (Roche). Despite very low rubella incidence in Belgium, 93 laboratories performed 85,957 IgM analyses, with 748 positive and 394 grey zone results. The National Reference Centre for Measles, Mumps and Rubella virus and the National Reference Centre for Congenital infections did not confirm any positive rubella cases in 2017.ConclusionThis retrospective analysis shows that rubella serology results may differ considerably according to the assay used. It is therefore important to use the same test when comparing results or performing follow-up testing. The number of anti-rubella IgM analyses was very high. Incorrect use of IgM for screening women of childbearing age can lead to unwarranted anxiety and overuse of confirmation tests.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34018485
doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.20.2000074
pmc: PMC8138961
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Viral
0
Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Jan;20(1):e17-e19
pubmed: 31501007
Lancet. 1990 Mar 17;335(8690):641-5
pubmed: 1969023
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2005 Mar 25;54(11):279-82
pubmed: 15788995
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2016 Jan;29(1):163-74
pubmed: 26607813
Vaccine. 2014 Apr 1;32(16):1890-5
pubmed: 24513012
MMWR Recomm Rep. 1998 May 22;47(RR-8):1-57
pubmed: 9639369
Lancet. 2015 Jun 6;385(9984):2297-307
pubmed: 25576992
J Med Virol. 2014 May;86(5):820-6
pubmed: 24114849
Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2012 Jan;19(1):1-4
pubmed: 22072722
Am J Clin Pathol. 1996 Aug;106(2):170-4
pubmed: 8712168
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017 Aug;23(8):511-515
pubmed: 28412379
Br J Biomed Sci. 2014;71(3):111-4
pubmed: 25265756
Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2017 Sep 5;24(9):
pubmed: 28701468
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2000 Oct;13(4):571-87
pubmed: 11023958
J Clin Virol. 2016 Jan;74:13-8
pubmed: 26638144
J Clin Microbiol. 2016 Jul;54(7):1720-1725
pubmed: 27147722
J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Sep;44(9):3094-7
pubmed: 16954232