The benefit from mumps virus IgG antibody avidity testing in the population with high vaccine coverage in the context of other serological methods for laboratory diagnosis of mumps and the current epidemiological
Authors:
R. Limberková 1; D. Smíšková 2; M. Havlíčková 1; K. Herrmannová 2; P. Lexová 1; V. Marešová 2
Authors‘ workplace:
Státní zdravotní ústav, Centrum epidemiologie a mikrobiologie, Praha
1; Klinika infekčních, parazitárních a tropických nemocí, Nemocnice Na Bulovce, Praha
2
Published in:
Epidemiol. Mikrobiol. Imunol. 65, 2016, č. 1, s. 39-44
Category:
Original Papers
Overview
Aim:
Regular vaccination against mumps resulted in a significant reduction in epidemic mumps in the Czech Republic. However, mumps cases have recently shown an upward trend, even in the vaccinated population where a considerable proportion of cases have occurred. The aim of this study was to find out, by mumps virus IgG antibody avidity testing, whether the high incidence of mumps in the vaccinated population is a result of primary or secondary vaccine failure and whether the vaccinated differ from the naturally immunised in anamnestic antibody avidity. Given the problematic laboratory diagnosis of mumps in the population with high vaccination coverage, the informative value of the detected IgM, IgA, and IgG antibodies was also considered as well as the potential of antibody avidity testing for improving laboratory diagnosis from a single sample of blood, the most commonly analysed clinical material, in patients with suspected mumps.
Material and methods:
Sixty-four patients laboratory confirmed with mumps, whose vaccination status was known, were included in the study (groups 1 and 2). Other study groups were 30 healthy naturally immunised subjects (group 3) and 22 vaccinated children 2–4-years of age with no etiological link to the mumps virus (group 4). The avidity index (AI) was determined using the Siemens Enzygnost Anti-Mumps/IgG kit and 6M urea, able to induce the dissociation of antigen-antibody bonds proportionally to the antibody avidity. IgM, IgG, and IgA antibodies were tested using the Siemens Enzygnost Anti-Mumps/IgM and /IgG, and Mast Diagnostica Mastazyme Mumps IgA kits. The EPIDAT system served as the data source.
Results:
The results showed that the mumps virus induces antibodies with a low AI after both vaccination, even recent, and natural immunisation. Antibodies with a high AI were only detected in convalescent sera of the vaccinated patients or in re-infected, naturally immunised persons, as a result of recent contact with the mumps virus. The comparison of the results of acute sera testing revealed that in the vaccinated patients, 56% of cases were laboratory confirmed based on IgA positivity, i.e. 20% more cases in comparison with routine detection of IgM antibodies, while of unvaccinated cases, 87% were IgA positive and 74% IgM positive.
Conclusion:
The results of mumps virus IgG antibody avidity testing suggest that the high proportion of cases in the vaccinated patients result from secondary vaccine failure, also known as waning immunity. Diagnostic benefit from antibody avidity testing has been observed in convalescent sera and/or acute sera from both vaccinated and naturally immunised patients collected from day 6 after the onset of the disease when significant increase in AI occurs.
The comparison of the serological methods for the detection of IgM, IgG, and IgA antibodies in acute sera revealed that the highest percentage of mumps infection was detected by IgA antibody testing. The addition of this serological method to mumps laboratory diagnosis made the latter considerably more effective, particularly in the vaccinated patients.
Keywords:
mumps virus – IgG antibody avidity – primary and secondary vaccine failure – serological diagnosis
Sources
1. Anis E, Grotto I, Moerman L, Warhavsky B, Slater PE, Lev B. Mumps outbreak in Israel´s highly vaccinated society: are two doses enough? Epidemiol Infect, 2012;140(3):439–446. Dostupné na www: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095026881100063X.
2. Bitsko RH, Cortese MM, Dayan GH, Rota PA, Lowe L, Iversen SC, Bellini WJ. Detection of RNA of mumps virus during an outbreak in a population with a high level of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine coverage. J Clin Microbiol, 2008;46:1101–1103.
3. Date AA, Kyaw MH, Rue AM, Klahn J, Obrecht L, et al. Long-term perzistence of Mumps antibody after receipt of 2 measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccinations and antibody response after third MMR vaccination among a university population. J Infect Dis, 2008; 197(12):1662–1668. Dostupné na www: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/588197.
4. Dayan GH, Quinlisk MP, Parker AA, Barskey AE, Harris ML, et al. Recent resurgence of Mumps in the United States. New Engl J Med, 2008;358(15):1580–1589. Dostupné na www: http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0706589.
5. Fiebelkorn AP, Coleman LA, Belongia EA, Freeman SK, York D. Mumps Antibody Response in Young Adults After a Third Dose of Measles--Mumps-Rubella Vaccine. Open Forum Infect Dis, 2014;1(3): ofu094 first published online September 19, 2014. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofu094.
6. Fránová D, Jílková E, Král V, Skorkovský J, Sojková N, Stiborová I. Víceúčelový sérologický přehled (spalničky, příušnice, pertuse, virová hepatitida B) SP 2013, ČR. Zprávy Centra epidemiologie a mikrobiologie, 2014;(23)Příloha 1:36–52.
7. Gut JP, Lablache C, Behr S, Kirn A. Symptomatic mumps virus reinfection. J Med Virol, 1995;(45):17–23.
8. Hatchette T, Davidson R, Clay S, Pettipas J. Laboratory diagnosis of mumps in a partially immunized population: The Nova Scotia experience. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol, 2009; 20(4):157–162.
9. Kaaijk P, Zeijst BA, Boog MC, Hoitink CW. Increased mumps incidence in the Netherlands: review on the possible role of vaccine strain and genotype. Euro Surveill, 2008; 13(26):pii=18914.
10. Kontio M, Jokinen S, Paunio M, Peltola H, Davidkin I. Waning antibody levels and avidity: implication for MMR vaccine-induced protection. J Infect Dis, 2012;(206):1542–1548.
11. Mrázová M, Smelhausová M, Sestáková Z, Svandová E, Benes C. The 2001 serological survey in the Czech Republic-mumps. Cent Eur J Public Health, 2003;11(Suppl):50–53.
12. Mühlemann K. The molecular epidemiology of mumps virus. Infect Genet Evol, 2004; 4(3):15–219.
13. Narita M, Matsuzono Y, Takekoshi Y, et al. Analysis of mumps vaccine failure by means of avidity testing for mumps virus – specific immunoglobulin G. Clin Diag Lab Immunol, 1998;(5):799–803.
14. Park DW, Nam MH, Kim JY, Kim HJ, Sohn JW, Cho Y, Song KJ, Kim MJ. Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated school population: assessment of secondary vaccine failure using IgG avidity measurements. Vaccine, 2007;(25):4665–4670.
15. Paulů V, Polanecký V. Očkování – trend 20. a 21. století. Jak je to s očkováním v ČR? Remedia, 2002;12(3):198–204.
16. Petráš M, Lesná IK. Manuál očkování 2010. 3.vyd., Praha 2010; 202–217 s. ISBN: 978-80-254-5419-0.
17. Rota JS, Rosen JB, Doll MK, McNall RJ, McGrew M, et al. Comparison of the sensitivity of laboratory diagnostic methods from a well-characterized outbreak of mumps in New York City in 2009. Clin Vaccine Immunol, 2013;20(3):391–396.
18. Rubin SA, Link MA, Sander CJ, Zhang C, Ngo L, et al. Recent mumps outbreaks in vaccinated populations: no evidence of immune escape. J Virol, 2012;86(1):615–620.
19. Rubin SA, Qi L, Audet SA, Sullivan B, et al. Antibody induced by immunization with the Jeryl Lynn mumps vaccine strain effectively neutralizes a heterologous wild-type mumps virus associated with a large outbreak. J Infect Dis, 2008;198(4):508–515.
20. Sanz-Moreno JC, Limia-Sánchez A, García-Comas L, Mosquera--Gutiérrez MM, Echevarria-Mayo JE, et al. Detection of secondary mumps vaccine failure by means of avidity testing for specific immunoglobulin G. Vaccine, 2005;23(41):4921–4925.
21. Vandermeulen C, Roelants M, Vermoere M, Roseeuw K, Goubau P, Hoppenbrouwers K. Outbreak of Mumps in a vaccinated child population: a guestion of vaccine failure? Vaccine, 2004;(22):2713–2716.
22. Yoshida N, Fujino M, Miyata A, Nagai T, Kamada M, Sakiyama H, Ihara T, Kumagai T, Okafuji T, Okafuji T, Nakayama T. Mumps virus reinfection is not a rare event confirmed by reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification. J Med Virol, 2008;80(3):517–523.
Labels
Hygiene and epidemiology Medical virology Clinical microbiologyArticle was published in
Epidemiology, Microbiology, Immunology
2016 Issue 1
Most read in this issue
- Antibiotic treatment of clostridial colitis
- Infectious and other somatic comorbidity in problem drug users – results of a cross-sectional study with medical examination
- Hepatitidis E virus
- Assessment of invalidity as a result of infectious diseases