Volume 25, Number 6—June 2019
Research
Performance of 2 Commercial Serologic Tests for Diagnosing Zika Virus Infection
Séverine Matheus, Cheikh Talla, Bhety Labeau, Franck de Laval, Sébastien Briolant, Lena Berthelot, Muriel Vray, and Dominique Rousset
Table 3
Rate and ratio of false Zika virus IgG–positive samples obtained with Euroimmun and Dia.Pro Zika virus IgG assays according to the non–Zika virus sample subgroup
| Test | Positive for dengue virus, collected before 2013 | Positive for chikungunya virus, collected in 2014 | Negative for Zika, dengue, and chikungunya viruses, collected at end of 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Euroimmun IgG test | |||
| False positivity rate, % (pos/pos + neg) | 40% (14/35) | 45.8% (11/24) | 11.9% (5/42) |
| IgG S/C ratio of false-positive IgG, mean (range) |
3.9 (1.1–6.7) |
2.0 (1.2–2.9) |
2.0 (1.3−3.7) |
| Dia.Pro IgG test | |||
| False positivity rate, % (pos/pos + neg) | 40% (14/35) | 58.6% (17/29) | 21.4% (9/42) |
| IgG S/C ratio of false-positive IgG, mean (range) | 9.2 (2.5–14.4) | 3.1 (1.1–7.7) | 4.3 (1.1–10.1) |
*Neg, negative; pos, positive.
Page created: May 20, 2019
Page updated: May 20, 2019
Page reviewed: May 20, 2019
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.