Downloaded from //cvi.asm.org/content/cdli/early/2010/08/25/CVI.00077-10.full.pdf · 8/25/2010 ·...
Transcript of Downloaded from //cvi.asm.org/content/cdli/early/2010/08/25/CVI.00077-10.full.pdf · 8/25/2010 ·...
1
Technical and diagnostic performance of five commercial anti-diphtheria toxoid 1
IgG ELISA Kits 2
Running title: Comparison of anti-diphtheria IgG ELISA kits 3
4
Faruq A, Dadson, L., Cox, H., Alcock, F, Parker, A.R.* 5
Binding Site Group Limited, PO Box 11712, Birmingham, B14 4ZB, United 6
Kingdom 7
8
Corresponding author* 9
Binding Site Group Limited 10
PO Box 11712 11
Birmingham 12
B14 4ZB 13
United Kingdom 14
Tel: +44(0)1214361000 15
Fax: +44(0)1214307061 16
Email: [email protected] 17
18
19
20
Copyright © 2010, American Society for Microbiology and/or the Listed Authors/Institutions. All Rights Reserved.Clin. Vaccine Immunol. doi:10.1128/CVI.00077-10 CVI Accepts, published online ahead of print on 25 August 2010
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
2
Abstract 21
22
The technical and diagnostic performance of five commercially available enzyme-23
linked immunosorbant assays for the measurement of anti-diphtheria toxoid IgG 24
antibodies were evaluated. There was good agreement between the relative 25
sensitivities of the five assays but the relative specificity of one of the assays differed 26
from that of the other four assays. Three of the five assays possessed recoveries of the 27
international reference material NIBSC 00/496 within the range 90%-110% at 28
antibody levels >0.1 IU/mL. The data suggests that there are manufacturer dependent 29
differences in relative sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for the determination of 30
anti-diphtheria toxoid IgG antibodies that could result in different diagnostic 31
interpretations. 32
33
Keywords: Diphtheria toxoid, ELISA, immunodeficiency, immune status34 on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
3
Introduction. 35
Diphtheria is caused by toxigenic strains of Corynebacterium diphtheriae and 36
is almost entirely preventable through a regular immunisation schedule (9). Since 37
routine immunisation against diphtheria has become standard practice in industrialised 38
nations clinical cases are rare, however it is still a problem in many developing 39
countries such as the new nations formed from the breakup of the USSR (29) as well 40
as in people without adequate immunity. 41
As well as determining rates of immunity within broad populations and the 42
immune status of at risk individuals, accurate measurement of anti-diphtheria toxoid 43
IgG levels are important in assessing the response to vaccination, the efficacy of an 44
immunisation schedule (13, 16, 31), and evaluating individuals for potential 45
immunodeficiency disorders (5). Vaccination response studies are part of the clinical 46
testing recommended for the diagnosis of primary immunodeficiency (2, 5). 47
For determination of anti-diphtheria toxoid IgG antibodies, the in-vivo 48
neutralisation test (NT) and in-vitro Vero cell assay (VCA) are considered the gold 49
standard methods (10, 18). However, ELISA based methodologies offer a simpler, 50
safer technique as live toxin is not required and an ELISA is a more rapid and less 51
expensive technique than a neutralisation test. It is often preferred by clinical 52
laboratories to measure anti-diphtheria toxoid IgG levels. 53
Standardisation of anti-diphtheria toxoid IgG tests has been facilitated by the 54
availability of reference material allowing results to be given in international units 55
(IU). The international standard for anti-diphtheria toxoid IgG immunoglobulin 56
(NIBSC 00/496) was assigned a value of 0.8 IU/mL by comparison to the British 57
standard for Equine anti-diphtheria toxin (NIBSC 66/153) in the mouse in-vivo 58
neutralisation test. The World Health Organisation (WHO) states that a specific IgG 59
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
4
concentration of 0.1 IU/mL is usually considered protective by standard ELISA (27). 60
Many studies have incorporated the WHO guidelines and interpret results as <0.01 61
IU/mL not protective against infection, 0.01-0.09 IU/mL basic protective levels and 62
>0.1 IU/mL as protective levels (4, 5, 7, 8). 63
The titre of anti-diphtheria IgG antibodies in patients with inadequate 64
immunity or an immunodeficiency disease can be very low often <0.1 IU/mL. To be 65
able to accurately and reliably measure low level titres ELISA’s need to be extremely 66
sensitive. This manuscript compares the sensitivity of five commercially available 67
anti-diphtheria toxoid IgG ELISA kits and suggests that the manufacture dependent 68
differences in preparation of these assays may affect the clinical interpretation of data. 69
70
Materials and Methods. 71
Anti-diphtheria toxoid IgG antibodies were measured according to the 72
manufacturers’ instructions using the following ELISA kits with the corresponding 73
measuring ranges: Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany (0.01-2 IU/mL); Scimedx Corp., 74
New Jersey, USA (0.1-5 IU/mL); Serion-Virion, Würzburg, Germany (0.05-2 75
IU/mL); the Binding Site Group Limited (BS), Birmingham, UK (0.012-3 IU/mL) and 76
Genzyme Virotech, Rüsselsheim, Germany (0.1-5 IU/mL). The time taken to run the 77
assays were as follows: Euroimmun, 105 mins; Scimedx Corp., 90 mins; Serion-78
Virion, 120 mins; BS, 90 mins; and Genzyme Virotech, 90 mins. Results were 79
generated as per the manufacturer’s instructions. Assays were considered valid when 80
quality control parameters were in range as per the manufacturer’s product insert. 81
Intra-assay precision for all five kits was measured using three serum samples 82
(low, medium and high level) and assayed in six well repeats at the same time. For 83
Euroimmun, Serion and BS a further sample was used for measurement of precision 84
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
5
<0.1 IU/mL. For inter-assay precision, the same measurements were performed over 85
two consecutive days. The intra- and inter-assay precision was assessed by calculating 86
the coefficient of variation. 87
Normal human sera (unknown vaccination status) and pre- and post-diphtheria 88
toxoid vaccination serum samples were obtained from Research Sample Bank, Inc., 89
Florida, USA and Golden West Biologicals Inc., California, USA and stored at -20oC 90
prior to testing. 91
For the comparison between two assays we calculated the relative sensitivities 92
and relative specificities on the same set of samples run in both assays. The 93
determination of whether a sample was positive or negative was relative to the cut off 94
value of 0.1 IU/mL in a particular assay. The values obtained served only for the 95
comparison between the two assays and the results were expressed as a percentage. 96
To calculate: relative sensitivities: ([number of samples positive in assays A and 97
B]/{[number of samples positive in assays A and B]+[number of samples positive in 98
assay A and negative in assay B]} *100); relative specificities: ([number of samples 99
negative in assays A and B]/{[number of samples negative in assays A and 100
B]+[number of samples positive in assay A and negative in assay B]} *100). 101
The reference material NIBSC 00/496 (NIBSC, Hertfordshire, UK) was used 102
to evaluate the calibration in the ELISA assays. For use, NIBSC 00/496 was 103
reconstituted according to the manufacturer’s instructions (working concentration of 104
1.6 IU/mL) and serially diluted with the appropriate sample diluents to a final 105
concentration of 0.012 IU/mL. Calibration of each assay was assessed by calculating 106
the “recovery” of NIBSC 00/496 by obtaining values (IU/mL) for serially diluted 107
NIBSC 00/496 from the assay calibration curve and comparing them to the expected 108
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
6
values according to this equation ([obtained NIBSC value/expected NIBSC 109
value]*100). The results are expressed as a percentage. 110
Response to diphtheria vaccination was assessed using twelve pre- and post-111
vaccination sample pairs, assayed over two consecutive days. The samples were 112
evaluated for a significant fold increase in titres between pre-vaccination titre and 113
post-vaccination titre. A significant increase has been defined in literature as 4-fold 114
(31). 115
For statistical analysis of the data Wilcoxon’s rank sum test and Freidman’s 116
analysis were applied using the Analyse-it Software Ltd, UK. A p value <0.05 was 117
considered significant. 118
119
Results. 120
Intra- and inter-assay precision were calculated for each kit (Table 1). Three 121
random samples were selected that could be read from all five calibration curves in 122
the measuring range of 0.1-2 IU/mL. The intra and inter-assay precision for the three 123
samples ranged from 3.4%-17.4% and 4.6%-27.3% respectively with the lowest 124
values achieved with Scimedx (4.6%-5.8% and 4.6%-7.5%) and BS (3.4%-3.8% and 125
5.8%-6.7%) assays. Poor inter-assay precision (>15%) was evident for the low sample 126
on the Euroimmun assay and the high sample on both the Euroimmun and Serion 127
assays. To further challenge precision at the bottom end of the curve on the three 128
assays with measuring ranges lower than 0.1 IU/mL (Serion 0.05 IU/mL; BS 0.01 129
IU/mL; and Euroimmun 0.01 IU/mL) precision with another sample was assessed. 130
This sample was randomly selected similar to the three samples used above since it 131
gave a measureable value <0.1 IU/mL in all three assays. The mean precision of the 132
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
7
sample in the Serion assay was 0.052 IU/mL (CV=15.2%), BS 0.09 IU/mL 133
(CV=4.2%) and Euroimmun 0.031 IU/mL (CV=10.3%). 134
In order to assess the performance of the five ELISA assays, levels of 135
antibodies to diphtheria toxoid in fifty six serum samples were determined and 136
quantified (Figure 1). On the Scimedx, Serion and Virotech assays not all samples 137
could be measured due to the limitation of the lower end of the measuring range and 138
were therefore not included in the figure. All five ELISA assays identified a number 139
of samples with titres of anti-diphtheria IgG antibodies below the WHO 140
recommended level of protection (0.1 IU/mL); Euroimmun (37/56 samples; 66%), 141
Scimedx assay (3/56 samples; 5.3%), Serion assay (21/56 samples; 38%), BS (26/56 142
samples; 46.4%) and Virotech assays (9/56 samples; 17%). 143
Figure 1 also shows there were no statistical differences between the 144
Euroimmun and BS assays (Wilcoxon test, p=0.375) and the Scimedx, Serion and 145
Virotech assays (Friedman’s test, p=0.295) but there was a significant difference 146
between the two groups of data (p<0.0001 Wilcoxon test). The figure also suggests 147
that there was not an even distribution of sample values around the median in the 148
Euroimmun and Scimedx assays. Using the samples that were quantifiable in all five 149
assays, there was good agreement with regards positivity (>0.1 IU/mL) and negativity 150
(<0.1 IU/mL) between the five assays. A comparison of relative sensitivity between 151
the five assays was 88.6% - 100% and relative specificity between four of the assays 152
was 72.7%-90.5% with the exception of the Scimedx assay (45% - 52.6%). 153
To assess the accuracy of calibration, the recoveries of serially diluted NIBSC 154
00/496 reference material with known titres, read from the respective calibration 155
material were assessed and expressed as a percentage target value (Table 2). To allow 156
fair comparison across all five assays, recovery across a measuring range of 0.11-3 157
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
8
IU/mL was compared. Two of the five assays (BS and Virotech) gave consistent and 158
accurate recoveries of the reference material across the range tested with %CV <10%. 159
When recoveries around the protective cut off of 0.1 IU/mL were assessed, only 160
Scimedx (95.1%), BS (97.1%) and Virotech (91.5%) showed recoveries within 10% 161
of the target value. When the diluted reference material at target values of 0.037 and 162
0.012 IU/mL, were run on the two assays designed to measure that low, the values 163
were 108.1% and 130.3% respectively in the BS assay but were undetectable in the 164
Euroimmun assay. 165
Levels of anti-diphtheria toxin IgG antibodies were determined in twelve 166
paired pre- and post-vaccination samples (Table 3). It was not possible to obtain 167
quantitative values for all pre-vaccination samples by all five assays as some samples 168
were below the limit of detection in certain assays. 169
It has been proposed that a four-fold, or greater, increase in the specific 170
antibody titre is a clinically significant response to diphtheria vaccine (16). It has also 171
been suggested that a ‘non responder’ would exhibit a less than 2.6-fold increase in 172
antibody titres after vaccination or antibody titres less than the protective titre post-173
vaccination (17, 27). The titres of anti-diphtheria IgG antibodies were <0.1 IU/mL for 174
the pre-vaccination samples 9 and 21 in the Euroimmun assay and for pre-vaccination 175
samples 10, 14, 17, 19, and 26 were >0.1 IU/mL in the Scimedx assay which were out 176
of consensus with titres measured in the other four assays. In the Scimedx assay, anti-177
diphtheria IgG titres recorded in samples 10, 16 and 19, a four-fold increase in titre 178
was not achieved post-vaccination but the pre-vaccination levels indicated titres >0.1 179
IU/mL. 180
For both the Serion and Virotech assays it was difficult to accurately measure 181
an increase in titre for samples 10, 14, 17, 19 and sample 22 in the Serion assay and 182
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
9
sample 26 in the Virotech assay as the pre-vaccination anti-diphtheria IgG antibody 183
titres were lower than the measuring range of the kit. Four fold increases in antibody 184
titre could not be measured in either assay for sample 16 however the pre-vaccination 185
level >0.1 IU/mL and no four fold increase in titre was measured in sample 26 in the 186
Serion assay but the post-vaccination level was >0.1 IU/mL. The value measured for 187
pre-vaccination sample 22 in Virotech assay was >0.1 IU/mL which was out of 188
consensus with values obtained in the other four assays which either recorded values 189
lower than the measuring range or falling in the range but <0.1 IU/mL. 190
In the BS assay a four fold increase in anti-diphtheria IgG titres were not 191
obtained for samples 15, 16 and 26 but in the two former samples the pre-vaccination 192
titre was >0.1 IU/mL and in sample 26 the post-vaccination tire was >0.1 IU/mL. In 193
all five assays a four fold increase in titre could not be measured for samples 20 and 194
28. However, for sample 20 all pre-vaccination levels >0.1 IU/mL and both pre and 195
post-vaccination titres <0.1 IU/mL for sample 28. 196
197
Discussion. 198
Although reports have suggested the anti-diphtheria IgG antibody titre 199
required for adequate protection is >0.1 IU/mL (27), several reports have suggested 200
that sensitive quantitation of specific IgG levels between 0.01-0.1 IU/mL are also 201
important. Antibody levels within this range provide minimal protection and 202
quantification may provide important clinical information. 203
There is debate as to whether in-vitro techniques for measuring anti-diphtheria 204
IgG antibodies are as sensitive as the in-vivo neutralisation tests. It has been 205
suggested that inaccuracies with ELISA may be due to the detection of non-206
neutralising antibodies directed towards an immunogenic but non-toxic part of the 207
toxoid (22, 23). In these studies it is not stated whether these ELISA assays were 208
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
10
calibrated to any standard such as NIBSC 00/496. When using standardised in-vitro 209
ELISA for the measurement of anti-diphtheria IgG antibodies the correlation of 210
sensitivities with in-vivo neutralisation assay and in-vitro tissue culture method are 211
good as low as 0.01 IU/mL (17, 30). At titres <0.01 IU/mL however the correlation 212
has been shown to be poor (14, 17). 213
In the present study we have compared the assay performance of five different 214
commercially available anti-diphtheria toxoid IgG ELISA assays. The data suggests 215
that considerable variation exists between the five assays. The range of %CV for both 216
intra-assays and inter-assays were 3.4%-17.4% and 4.6%-27.3% respectively with 217
samples of antibody titres >0.1 IU/mL and 4.2-15.2% for samples <0.1 IU/mL. The 218
serum sample data readings suggests that the Euroimmun and BS assays give similar 219
results but that they are significantly different to the Scimedx, Serion and Virotech 220
results. The sensitivities between the five assays were comparable but the Scimedx 221
assay had lower specificity with respects to the other four assays. 222
Comparison of the accuracy of calibration to the international reference 223
standard NIBSC 00/496 revealed interesting results. Only three of the assays 224
possessed <15% mean variation between the assays calibrator material and reference 225
standard at anti-diphtheria IgG antibody levels >0.1 IU/mL. The other two assays 226
showed large mean variation of 25.4-44.3%. At levels <0.1 IU/mL, one assay had a 227
mean variation of 19% and the other failed to detect the low level anti-diphtheria IgG 228
antibodies. 229
Analysis of the anti-diphtheria IgG levels in pre- and post-vaccination serum 230
further highlighted variation. Depending on the assay chosen a sample could be 231
interpreted as possessing a protective or non protective level of anti-diphtheria IgG 232
antibodies and accurate assessment of fold increase in titres could be difficult. 233
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
11
A recent independent study has also highlighted the differences that exist 234
between commercial anti-diphtheria IgG ELISA kits. Di Giovine et al (6) assessed the 235
performance of five commercial anti-diphtheria IgG ELISA assays using samples 236
with values determined in the gold standard VCA. The correlation coefficients 237
between the individual assays and the VCA ranged from 0.6 to 0.85 and in three of 238
the assays the majority of VCA positive samples were <0.1 IU/mL. The data clearly 239
demonstrated that manufacture dependent differences between anti-diphtheria IgG 240
ELISA assays exist. 241
Since all assays were performed by the same technician and the protocols for 242
all commercial assays were similar such variations that affect antibody:antigen 243
interaction may arise at several points in assay manufacture. The variation in precision 244
data suggests possible differences in antigen source, preparation or plate coating 245
techniques and the difference in the data sets imply that different types of blocking 246
agents may have been utilised or that plate blocking may have occurred to different 247
extents. Some of the variation is undoubtedly due to differences in the setting of the 248
calibration and it is not disclosed by all manufacturers how the calibration has been 249
set with regards to the use of an international standard. Potentially also, the types of 250
buffer systems used in the assays could also influence the antibody:antigen 251
interaction. Almost certainly the data suggests that there is a need for some level of 252
agreed standardisation in the preparation of these assays. 253
The sensitive measurements of anti-diphtheria IgG antibodies are important 254
clinically for two reasons: assessment of immune status and measurement of immune 255
response. The WHO have suggested the level of anti-diphtheria toxoid IgG antibodies 256
required for optimal protection from diphtheria infection is >0.1 IU/mL. However, the 257
levels of circulating anti-diphtheria IgG antibodies required for basic immunity in 258
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
12
man has been estimated to be 0.01 IU/mL by the Schick skin test (12, 24, 25) and 259
many studies have reported that levels in the general population are <0.1 IU/mL and 260
in some cases <0.01 IU/mL (1, 3, 11, 19, 20, 21, 26, 28, 32). Maple and colleagues 261
showed that from the age of 14 years up to <54 years of age the percentage of the 262
population (n=3088) with anti-diphtheria toxoid IgG levels >0.1 IU/mL decreased 263
from ~40% to ~5%. Within the same groups the percentage of the population with 264
levels <0.01 IU/mL increased from ~10% to ~40% (15). A study by Edmonds and 265
colleagues found similar results (7). In the present study the standard deviation of the 266
mean titre in fifty six random serum samples and in the pre-vaccination samples 267
suggested that a considerable percentage of samples have anti-diphtheria IgG 268
antibody titres <0.1 IU/mL (between 5.3% and 66% depending on the assay used). 269
The response of the immune system to the challenge of a vaccine can aid the 270
immunologist in their diagnosis of an immunodeficiency (5). Studies have suggested 271
that responders, with an efficient immune response, produce a 4-31.1 fold increase in 272
specific antibody titre to diphtheria vaccine (2, 16, 26) whereas non-responders, 273
possessing a defective immune response, only show an approximate 2.6 fold increase 274
in titre (16) or an antibody titre post-vaccination of <0.1 IU/ml (27). Furthermore, two 275
studies have suggested that the percentage of non responders to the diphtheria vaccine 276
could be between 4% and 14% depending on the age group and vaccination regime 277
(11, 20). 278
In conclusion, we have provided a study to evaluate the performance by five 279
different commercial ELISA assays in the measurement of anti-diphtheria toxoid IgG 280
levels. Given the clinical use of the information derived from the test it is essential 281
that sensitive and accurate ELISA assays are utilised. We conclude that among the 282
commercially anti-diphtheria IgG ELISA assays tested in this manuscript there are 283
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
13
significant differences that exist with regards to precision, relative sensitivity, relative 284
specificity and calibration. Further studies are required to understand the clinical 285
implications that arise from the use of different ELISA assays with differing levels of 286
sensitivity and these significant manufacture dependent differences. 287
288
Acknowledgements. 289
290
We thank Dr. Richard Hughes for his useful comments in the preparation of this 291
manuscript.292
All authors are employees of the Binding Site Group Ltd, which produces one of the
assays used in this study.
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
14
References.
1. Bonetti, T. C., R. C. Succi, L. Y. Weckx, L. Tavares-Lopes, and M. I. de
Moraes-Pinto. 2004. Tetanus and diphtheria antibodies and response to a
booster dose in Brazilian HIV-1-infected women. Vaccine 22: 3707-3712.
2. Bonilla, F. A., I. L. Bernstein, D. A. Khan, Z. K. Ballas, J. Chinen, M. M.
Frank, L. J. Kobrynski, A. I. Levinson, B. Mazer, R. P. Nelson Jr., J. S.
Orange, J. M. Routes, W. T. Shearer, and R. U. Sorensen. 2005. Practice
parameter for the diagnosis and management of primary immunodeficiency.
Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 94: S1-63.
3. Bracco Neto, H., A. Colucci, R. F. Puccini, and C. K. Farhat. 2005.
Immunogenicity of a combined DTPa-HB vaccine co-administered with
Haemophilus influenzae type B conjugate vaccine PRP-T for primary and
booster vaccinations. Braz. J. Infect. Dis. 9: 363-373.
4 Cellesi, C., A. Zanchi, C. Michelangeli, F. Giovannoni, A. Sansoni, and G.
M. Rossolini. 1989. Immunity to diphtheria in a sample of adult population
from central Italy. Vaccine 7: 417-420.
5. de Vries, E. 2006. Patient-centred screening for primary immunodeficiency: a
multi-stage diagnostic protocol designed for non-immunologists. Clin. Exp.
Immunol. 145: 204-214.
6. Di Giovine, P., A. Pinto, R.M. Olander, D. Sesardic, P. Stickings, G.
Berbers, S. Neal, A. Efstratiou, R. Paberza, S. Dauksiene, M. Bujko, A.
Detcheva, U. Joks, B. Levent, C. von Hunolstein. 2010. External quality
assessment for the determination of diphtheria antitoxin in human serum. Clin
Vaccine Immunol. 17:1282-1290.
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
15
7. Edmunds, W. J., R. G. Pebody, H. Aggerback, S. Baron, G. Berbers, M.
A. Conyn-van Spaendonck, H. O. Hallander, R. Olander, P. A. Maple, H.
E.Melker, P. Olin, F. Fievret-Groyne, C. Rota, S. Salmaso, A. Tischer, C.
von-Hunolstein, and E. Miller. 2000. The sero-epidemiology of diphtheria in
Western Europe. ESEN Project. European Sero-Epidemiology Network.
Epidemiol. Infect. 125: 113-125.
8. Galazka, A.M., and B. Kardymowicz. 1989. Immunity against diphtheria in
adults in Poland. Epidemiol. Infect. 103: 587-593.
9. Galazka, A. M., and S. E. Robertson. 1996. Immunization against diphtheria
with special emphasis on immunization of adults. Vaccine 14: 845-857.
10 Glenny, A. T., and M. Llewellyn-Jones. 1931. The intracutaneous method of
testing diphtheria toxin and antitoxin. J. Path. Bacteriol. 34: 143-156.
11. Goncalves, G., M. A. Santos, J. G. Frade, and J. S. Cunha. 2007. Levels of
diphtheria and tetanus specific IgG of Portuguese adult women, before and
after vaccination with adult type Td. Duration of immunity following
vaccination. BMC Public Health 7: 109.
12. Ipsen, J., Jr. 1954. Immunization of adults against diphtheria and tetanus. N.
Engl. J. Med. 251: 459-466.
13. Kimura, M., H. Kuno-Sakai, Y. Sato, H. Kamiya, R. Nii, S. Isomura, K.
Horiuchi, T. Kato, M. Deguchi, H. Saikusa. 1991. A comparative trial of the
reactogenicity and immunogenicity of Takeda acellular pertussis vaccine
combined with tetanus and diphtheria toxoids. Outcome in 3- to 8-month-old
infants, 9- to 23-month-old infants and children, and 24- to 30-month-old
children. Am. J. Dis. Child. 145: 734-741.
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
16
14. Knight, P. A., J. Tilleray, and J. Queminet. 1986. Studies on the correlation
of a range of immunoassays for diphtheria antitoxin with the guinea-pig
intradermal test. Dev. Biol. Stand. 64: 25-32.
15. Maple, P. A., C. S. Jones, E. C. Wall, A. Vyseb, W. J. Edmunds, N. J.
Andrews, and E. Miller. 2000. Immunity to diphtheria and tetanus in
England and Wales. Vaccine 19: 167-173.
16. McCusker, C., W. Somerville, V. Grey and B. Mazer. 1997. Specific
antibody responses to diphtheria/tetanus revaccination in children evaluated
for immunodeficiency. Ann. Allergy. Asthma. Immunol. 79: 145-150.
17. Melville-Smith, M., and A. Balfour. 1988. Estimation of Corynebacterium
diphtheriae antitoxin in human sera: a comparison of an enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay with the toxin neutralisation test. J. Med. Microbiol. 25:
279-283.
18. Middlebrook, J. L., R. B. Dorland, and S. H. Leppla. 1978. Association of
diphtheria toxin with Vero cells. Demonstration of a receptor, J. Biol. Chem.
253: 7325-7330.
19. Nordoy, T., A. Husebekk, I. S. Aaberge, P. A. Jenum, H. H. Samdal, L. B.
Flugsrud, A. C. Kristoffersen, H. Holte, S. Kvaloy, and A. Kolstad. 2001.
Humoral immunity to viral and bacterial antigens in lymphoma patients 4-10
years after high-dose therapy with ABMT. Serological responses to
revaccinations according to EBMT guidelines. Bone Marrow Transplant 28:
681-687.
20. Ramsay, M. E., M. J. Corbel, K. Redhead, L. A. Ashworth, and N. T.
Begg. 1991. Persistence of antibody after accelerated immunisation with
diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis vaccine, BMJ 302: 1489-1491.
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
17
21. Robinson, M. J., C. Heal, E. Gardener, P. Powell, and D. G. Sims. 2004.
Antibody response to diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization in preterm
infants who receive dexamethasone for chronic lung disease. Pediatrics 113:
733-737.
22. Sesardic, D., and M. J. Corbel. 1992. Testing for neutralising potential of
serum antibodies to tetanus and diphtheria toxin. Lancet 340: 737-738.
23. Skoura, L., A. Efstratiou, A. Tsakris, S. Pournaras, R. C. George, and J.
Douboyas. 1999. Study on the use of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
in determining human antibodies to diphtheria toxin as compared with a
reference toxin neutralization assay. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.
22: 181-186.
24. Smith, J. W. 1969. Diphtheria and tetanus toxoids. Br. Med. Bull. 25: 177-
182.
25. Tasman, A., and F. J. Huygen. 1962. Immunization against tetanus of
patients given injections of antitetanus serum. Bull. World Health Organ. 26:
397-407.
26. Theeten, H., H. Rumke, F. J. Hoppener, R. Vilatimo, S. Narejos, P. Van
Damme, and B. Hoet. 2007. Primary vaccination of adults with reduced
antigen-content diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis or dTpa-inactivated
poliovirus vaccines compared to diphtheria-tetanus-toxoid vaccines. Curr.
Med. Res. Opin. 23: 2729-2739.
27. Van der Wielen, M., and P. Van Damme. 2000. Tetanus-diphtheria booster
in non-responding tetanus-diphtheria vaccinees. Vaccine 19: 1005-1006.
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
18
28. Vellinga, A., P. Van Damme, E. Joossens, and H. Goossens. 2000.
Response to diphtheria booster vaccination in healthy adults: vaccine trial.
BMJ 320: 217.
29. Vitek, C. R., and M. Wharton. 1998. Diphtheria in the former Soviet Union:
reemergence of a pandemic disease. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 4: 539-550.
30. Walory, J., P. Grzesiowski, and W. Hryniewicz. 2000. Comparison of four
serological methods for the detection of diphtheria anti-toxin antibody. J.
Immunol. Methods 245: 55-65.
31. Wasserman, R. L., and R. U. Sorensen. 1999. Evaluating children with
respiratory tract infections: the role of immunization with bacterial
polysaccharide vaccine. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 18: 157-163.
32. Weckx, L. Y., K. Divino-Goes, D. M. Lihama, E. Carraro, N. Bellei, C. F.
Granato, and M. I. Moraes-Pinto. 2006. Effect of a single tetanus-diphtheria
vaccine dose on the immunity of elderly people in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Braz. J.
Med. Biol. Res. 39: 519-523.
Figure Legend
Figure 1. Box plot of normal samples with quantitative values assayed in the five
ELISA assays (Euroimmun, n=52; BS, n=56; Serion, n=40; Scimedx, n=53;
Virotech, n=47).
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
19
Table 1. Intra- and inter-precision calculated in five commercial ELISA assays.
Euroimmun Scimedx Serion BS Virotech
Serum Sample Intra Inter Intra Inter Intra Inter Intra Inter Intra Inter
Mean (IU/mL) 0.44 0.44 0.65 0.65 0.48 0.48 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
SD 0.06 0.12 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.06 Low
CV % 13.6 27.3 4.6 4.6 6.3 6.3 3.8 5.8 5.8 11.5
Mean (IU/mL) 0.96 0.96 2.92 2.92 1.50 1.50 0.89 0.89 1.36 1.36
SD 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.22 0.11 0.12 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.09 Medium
CV % 10.4 14.6 5.8 7.5 7.3 8.0 3.4 6.7 4.4 6.6
Mean (IU/mL) 0.46 0.46 0.96 0.96 0.45 0.45 1.04 1.04 0.81 0.81
SD 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.06 High
CV % 17.4 19.6 5.2 7.3 6.7 15.6 3.8 5.8 6.2 7.4
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
20
Table 2. Mean percentage recovery from three repeat assays of NIBSC 00/496 standard in five commercial ELISAs.
Recovery (%) Target
(IU/mL) Euroimmun Scimedxa Serion
b BS Virotech
a
3.00 45.5 149.3 NA 85.3 107.6
1.00 98.0 127.7 104.9 89.7 114.1
0.33 83.6 86.1 94.5 94.8 100.2
0.11
37.5
95.1
82.3
97.1
91.5
0.037 0.00 N/A N/A 108.1 N/A
0.012 0.00 N/A N/A 130.3 N/A
Meanc 66.1 114.7 93.9 91.7 103.3
CV 44.3 25.4 12.1 5.8 9.4
NA= not applicable.
a Measuring range of these kits were 0.1-5 IU/mL (see methods and materials).
b Measuring range of this kit was 0.05-2.0 IU/mL (see methods and materials).
c Mean value and CV are for the recovery of samples 0.11-3.00 IU/mL
To calculate, values (IU/mL) for serially diluted NIBSC 00/496 were obtained from a calibration curve and compared to the expected value
according to this equation ([obtained NIBSC value/ expected NIBSC value]*100).
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
21
Table 3. Pre and post vaccination data from five commercial ELISA tests.
The samples were assayed in duplicate wells at the same time in three separate assays. All assays were valid and the data for the pre- and post-
vaccination samples represent the mean value derived from the three independent assays.
EUROIMMUN SCIMEDX SERION BS VIROTECH
Sample ID
Pre
Post
Fold
Pre
Post
Fold
Pre
Post
Fold
Pre
Post
Fold
Pre
Post
Fold
9
0.093
1.089
11.7
0.186
1.547
8.3
0.113
1.286
11.4
0.129
0.914
7.1
0.129
1.351
10.4
10 0.018 0.174 9.7 0.103 0.333 3.2 <0.05 0.310 - 0.046 0.218 4.8 <0.1 0.246 -
14 0.018 0.822 46.3 0.103 1.257 12.2 <0.05 0.861 - 0.049 0.838 17.1 <0.1 0.891 -
15 0.232 1.271 5.5 0.246 2.445 10.0 0.458 >2.000 - 0.431 1.458 3.4 0.183 1.826 10.0
16 0.077 0.494 6.4 0.175 0.560 3.2 0.220 0.608 2.8 0.191 0.417 2.2 0.251 0.722 2.9
17 0.045 0.884 19.4 0.138 1.186 8.6 <0.05 0.776 - 0.065 0.567 8.8 <0.1 0.709 -
19 0.011 0.146 13.0 0.110 0.228 2.1 <0.05 0.278 - 0.044 0.266 6.0 <0.1 0.211 -
20 0.160 0.495 3.1 0.622 1.034 1.7 0.630 0.930 1.5 0.377 0.614 1.6 0.339 0.620 1.8
21 0.069 1.233 17.8 0.137 3.806 27.7 0.265 >2.000 - 0.216 1.476 6.8 0.164 1.744 10.7
22 <0.01 0.568 - <0.1 0.907 - <0.05 0.557 - 0.025 0.460 18.2 0.154 0.765 5.0
26 0.054 0.308 5.7 0.149 0.336 2.3 0.061 0.233 3.8 0.065 0.178 2.7 <0.1 0.252 -
28 0.014 0.018 1.3 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.05 <0.05 - 0.021 0.035 1.7 <0.1 <0.1 -
Mean
0.072
0.625
0.197
1.240
0.291
0.585
0.138
0.620
0.203
0.849
SD 0.069 0.431 0.156 1.068 0.216 0.387 0.140 0.473 0.078 0.569
SEM1 0.020 0.125
0.045 0.308
0.062 0.112
0.040 0.137
0.023 0.164
1 SEM is the standard error of the mean for all readable pre- or post-vaccination samples.
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from
23
Figure 1
EUROIM
MUN
BS
SERIO
N
SCIM
EDX
VIR
OTECH
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10p=0.375p=0.375p=0.375
p=0.295
p<0.0001
IU/m
l
on January 11, 2021 by guesthttp://cvi.asm
.org/D
ownloaded from