Evaluation of rapid diagnostic tests and conventional enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays to determine prior dengue infection

Background In September 2018, the World Health Organization recommended that prevaccination screening be used with the tetravalent dengue vaccine (CYD-TDV), to ensure that only individuals with evidence of prior dengue infection (PDI) are vaccinated. Dengue rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) would offer a potential solution for prevaccination screening at the point-of-care, but data on performance of available RDTs for identifying PDI are limited. We determined the suitability of four dengue RDTs and two conventional enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) to identify PDI and evaluated cross-reactivity with co-circulating flaviviruses. Methods: Specificity was assessed using 534 dengue-negative [determined by 50% plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT50)] serum samples from USA (n = 229) and dengue-endemic regions (n = 305). Sensitivity was assessed using 270 samples from recent (n = 90) or remote (n = 90) virologically confirmed prior dengue cases, and dengue PRNT50-positive samples (n = 90). Cross-reactivity was assessed in dengue-seronegative samples that were seropositive for yellow fever (n = 57), Japanese encephalitis (n = 37), West Nile (n = 59) or Zika (n = 41). Results: Dengue IgG RDTs and the Panbio ELISA exhibited favourable specificities (99–100%), higher than the Focus ELISA (95%). The RDTs had variable sensitivities (40–70%) that were lower than those of the ELISAs (≥90%). Cross-reactivity to other flaviviruses was low with RDTs (≤7%), but more significant with ELISAs (up to 51% for West Nile and 34% for Zika). No cross-reactivity to any of the four closely related flaviviruses was observed with the CTK Biotech RDT. For each SeroTest, sensitivity appeared similar in samples from individuals with recent (<13 months) vs remote (3–4 years) virologically confirmed PDI. Conclusions: In general, dengue IgG RDTs were found to be more specific and less cross-reactive than the ELISAs, but the latter were more sensitive for identifying PDI cases. Currently available RDTs could be temporizing tools for rapid and safe prevaccination screening until improved RDTs with increased sensitivity become available.

Prevalence of Measles, Rubella, Mumps, and Varicella Antibodies Among Healthcare Workers in Japan

Objectives:To evaluate the immune status of healthcare workers (HCWs) against measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella in Japan, and to promote an adequate vaccination program among HCWs.Setting:University of Tokyo Hospital.Participants:Eight hundred seventy-seven HCWs.Design:Serologic screening for measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella was performed on HCWs. Antibodies against measles, rubella, and mumps were detected using hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay ($4.20 per test). If serum was negative by HI assay, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (EIA) was performed ($12.60 per test). Anti-varicella antibodies were detected by EIA only.Results:Among tested HCWs, 98.5%, 90.4%, 85.8%, and 97.2% had immunity to measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella, respectively. All those born before 1970 were seropositive for measles. However, individuals susceptible to rubella, mumps, and varicella were present in all age groups. The sensitivities and negative predictive values of HI assay compared with EIA were 86.6% and 11.3% for measles, 99.1% and 92.2% for rubella, and 47.8% and 24.1% for mumps, respectively. For measles and mumps, prevaccination screening by HI assay in combination with EIA led to significant savings compared with EIA only. In contrast, it was estimated that prevaccination screening using only HI assay would be more economical for rubella.Conclusions:Aggressive screening and vaccination of susceptible HCWs was essential regardless of age. Prevaccination serologic screening using a combination of HI assay and EIA was more economical for measles and mumps.