The World Health Organization (WHO) has targeted measles for global eradication through mass immunization. For effective monitoring of eradication targets, high-quality surveillance is needed. The detection of IgM antibodies, specific to the measles virus, with the use of commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA or EIA) is broadly used within the WHO global measles and rubella laboratory network for laboratory confirmation, and in particular, ELISA kits manufactured by Siemens (Enzygnost kits) have been primarily used. Spurred by the discontinuation of these kits, this study aims to report on the clinical sensitivity and specificity of comparable commercial ELISA kits and one automated chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) method. A panel of 239 serum samples was assembled that included sera from confirmed measles cases (n = 50) and probable post-MMR vaccine response (n = 2). Measles-negative sera (n = 187) were collected from individuals presenting with other fever and rash illnesses. A total of 7 ELISA kits (Euroimmun native antigens and recombinant nucleoprotein, IBL, Clin-Tech Microimmune, NovaTec NovaLisa, Serion, and Siemens Enzygnost) and one CLIA method (DiaSorin LIAISON XL) were evaluated. The ELISA kits included two IgM capture methods and five indirect methods. Calculated sensitivities and specificities ranged from 75.0% to 98.1% and 86.6% to 99.5%, respectively. The parvovirus B19 IgM positive sera were noted to cause false-positive results, particularly for the ELISA kits from Serion and NovaLisa; specificities for this subset of samples ranged from 51.4% to 100.0%. The capture IgM ELISA methods provided the best combination of sensitivity and specificity.
Keywords: CLIA; EIA; ELISA; IgM; immunoserology; kit evaluation; measles; measles IgM serology; sensitivity; specificity.
© Crown copyright 2021.