Diagnostic performance of a new automated heterophile antibody test in adults and children

Interpretation of EBV serology for human body material donors: Is there a need for early antigen IgG and heterophile antibodies testing?

In this report we evaluated a diagnostic algorithm, proposed by the Belgian Superior Health Council, to detect acute and past Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infections by means of serology in donors of human body material for transplantation. The available EBV serology parameters were tested on eighty serum samples on three random access analysers: Architect i2000 SR, Liasion XL and BioPlex 2200. The EBV sero-status was determined according to the proposed algorithm and results were compared between the different analysers. Seventy one % of the samples gave concordant interpretations on the three analysers. Most of the discordant results were attributable to early antigen (EA) IgG. The knowledge of the EA IgG and heterophile antibodies (HA) IgM status provided only limited added value and was only useful to distinguish between a very early acute infection and false positivity of viral capsid antigen IgM. The diagnostic algorithm proposed by the Belgian Superior Health Council is merely directive and each individual lab remains responsible for the interpretation and implementation of test combinations for the detection of EBV infections. Our study shows the limited added value of testing for EA IgG and HA IgM, based both on clinical and technical performance.

Rapid diagnosis in serology

Serological diagnosis of acute phase infections implies the detection of IgM specific response, an effective marker of primary infection, but with less clinical significance in reactivations or reinfections. The aim of this article is to provide an updated view of the rapid diagnosis in serology by detecting the IgM isotype and reviewing its applications and limitations. Point-of-care (PoC) tests are analyzed. PoC tests are used in geographical areas where traditional tests are not available, as well as in other circumstances where their use brings the diagnosis directly to the target population. Likewise, their use reduces the response time between taking the sample and the diagnosis, making it easier to make clinical decisions. PoC assays have proven cost-effective, especially in preventing vertical transmission of syphilis and HIV infection.

Serological diagnosis of Epstein-Barr virus infection: Problems and solutions

Serological tests for antibodies specific for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) antigens are frequently used to define infection status and for the differential diagnosis of other pathogens responsible for mononucleosis syndrome. Using only three parameters [viral capsid antigen (VCA) IgG, VCA IgM and EBV nuclear antigen (EBNA)-1 IgG],it is normally possible to distinguish acute from past infection: the presence of VCA IgM and VCA IgG without EBNA-1 IgG indicates acute infection, whereas the presence of VCA IgG and EBNA-1 IgG without VCA IgM is typical of past infection. However, serological findings may sometimes be difficult to interpret as VCA IgG can be present without VCA IgM or EBNA-1 IgG in cases of acute or past infection, or all the three parameters may be detected simultaneously in the case of recent infection or during the course of reactivation. A profile of isolated EBNA-1 IgG may also create some doubts. In order to interpret these patterns correctly, it is necessary to determine IgG avidity, identify anti-EBV IgG and IgM antibodies by immunoblotting, and look for heterophile antibodies, anti-EA (D) antibodies or viral genome using molecular biology methods. These tests make it possible to define the status of the infection and solve any problems that may arise in routine laboratory practice.

Evidence-based approach for interpretation of Epstein-Barr virus serological patterns

Diagnosis of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection is based on clinical symptoms and serological markers, including the following: immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM antibodies to the viral capsid antigen (VCA), heterophile antibodies, and IgG antibodies to the EBV early antigen-diffuse (EA-D) and nuclear antigen (EBNA-1). The use of all five markers results in 32 possible serological patterns. As a result, interpretation of EBV serologies remains a challenge. The purpose of this study was to use a large population of patients to develop evidence-based tools for interpreting EBV results. This study utilized 1,846 serum specimens sent to the laboratory for physician-ordered EBV testing. Chart review was performed for more than 800 patients, and diagnoses were assigned based on physician-ordered testing, clinical presentation, and patient history. Testing for all five EBV antibodies was performed separately on all serum samples using the Bio-Rad BioPlex 2200 system. Presumed EBV diagnosis (based on previous publications) was compared to EBV diagnosis based on a medical record review for each serological pattern. Interestingly, of the 32 possible serological patterns, only 12 occurred in > or = 10 patients. The remaining 20 patterns were uninterpretable because they occurred with such infrequency. Two easy-to-use tables were created to interpret EBV serological patterns based on whether three (EBV VCA IgG, IgM, and heterophile) or five markers are utilized. The use of these two tables allows for interpretation of >95% of BioPlex serological results. This is the first evidence-based study of its kind for EBV serology.