Abstract
Rubella in early pregnancy bears a high risk for congenital defects (e.g., cataracts, hearing loss, and heart disease) and for long-term sequelae in the newborn. Despite implementation of vaccination programs in many regions, the threat of devastating consequences from congenital rubella virus infection remains and careful screening of maternal immune status before and during pregnancy helps to reduce the risk. This study compared the performance of the Elecsys Rubella IgG assay with that of other assays routinely used for screening. Samples from 1,090 women undergoing routine antenatal care were tested using the Elecsys and Enzygnost Rubella IgG assays and the hemagglutination inhibition test. Samples with hemagglutination inhibition titers of <32 (n = 148) were additionally tested using the Vidas, AxSYM, Liaison, and Architect Rubella IgG assays. Agreement of qualitative results from the Elecsys, Enzygnost, and hemagglutination inhibition assays was good in all samples. All assays showed 100.0% specificity. In samples with hemagglutination inhibition titers of <32, the Elecsys, AxSYM, and Enzygnost assays showed higher sensitivity (>90.0%) than the other immunoassays (78.6 to 82.4%). The Elecsys assay reported significantly higher rubella virus IgG levels than the other immunoassays across the whole set of 1,090 samples, with the largest bias and deviation from limits of agreement in Bland-Altman analysis. In conclusion, the Elecsys assay is highly sensitive and specific with regard to qualitative results and suitable for routine automated screening. However, given the considerable variation between quantitative results from different immunoassays, testing methods should be documented and the same assay used throughout an individual's antenatal follow-up wherever possible.