Performance Evaluation of the VIDAS(®) Measles IgG Assay and Its Diagnostic Value for Measuring IgG Antibody Avidity in Measles Virus Infection.

The objective of this study is primarily to compare the performance of the VIDAS(®) Measles immunoglobulin (Ig)G assay to that of two other serological assays using an immunoassay technique, Enzygnost(®) Anti-measles Virus/IgG (Siemens) and Measles IgG CAPTURE EIA(®) (Microimmune). The sensitivity and the agreement of the VIDAS(®) Measles IgG assay compared to the Enzygnost(®) Anti-measles Virus/IgG assay and the Measles IgG CAPTURE EIA(®) assay are 100%, 97.2% and 99.0%, 98.4%, respectively. The very low number of negative sera for IgG antibodies does not allow calculation of specificity. As a secondary objective, we have evaluated the ability of the VIDAS(®) Measles IgG assay to measure anti-measles virus IgG antibody avidity with the help of the VIDAS(®) CMV IgG Avidity reagent, using 76 sera from subjects with measles and 238 other sera. Different groups of populations were analyzed. In the primary infection measles group, the mean IgG avidity index was 0.16 (range of 0.07 to 0.93) compared to 0.79 (range of 0.25 to 1) in the serum group positive for IgG antibodies and negative for IgM. These data allow to define a weak anti-measles virus IgG antibody avidity as an avidity index (AI) < 0.3 and a strong avidity as an AI > 0.6. The VIDAS(®) Measles IgG assay has a performance equivalent to that of other available products. Its use, individual and quick, is well adapted to testing for anti-measles immunity in exposed subjects.

Accuracy of virtual bronchoscopy to detect endobronchial lesions.

BACKGROUND: Virtual bronchoscopy (VB) could obviate flexible bronchoscopy (FB) if no endobronchial lesion is detected in patients presenting with a suspicion of malignancy. Our objectives were to evaluate the accuracy (in terms of sensitivity and specificity) of VB in detecting endobronchial lesions, and to determine the anatomical limit of detection of endobronchial lesions by VB. METHODS: This study involved, in a blind comparison of VB and FB, consecutive patients presenting with symptoms or plain chest radiography abnormalities raising the suspicion of pulmonary neoplasm. After the standard chest computed tomography (CT), additional helical CT data were acquired from the aortic arch to the origin of the segmental bronchi of the inferior lobes in one 20-second breath hold using an helicoidal CT scan (3.0-mm collimation with a pitch of 1.5 and 1.5-mm reconstruction intervals). RESULTS: One hundred ninety patients were enrolled; 136 patients (including 63 with an endobronchial lesion at FB) contributed to the primary analysis. The sensitivity and specificity of VB to detect endobronchial lesions were 68% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 55% to 79%) and 90% (95% CI: 81% to 96%), respectively. Overall, the agreement between VB and FB regarding the location on endobronchial lesions was substantial (weighted kappa: 0.66). However, VB detected only 26 of the 34 lobar lesions (sensitivity: 76%; CI: 59% to 89%) and 11 of the 23 segmental lesions (sensitivity: 48%; CI: 27% to 69%). CONCLUSIONS: Beyond the mainstem bronchi, VB is not accurate enough to detect endobronchial lesions and to obviate FB in patients presenting with a suspicion of malignancy.