PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of cviPermissionsJournals.ASM.orgJournalAEM ArticleJournal InfoAuthorsReviewers
 
Clin Vaccine Immunol. Mar 2013; 20(3): 443–445.
PMCID: PMC3592343
Seropositivity Rates for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella IgG and Costs Associated with Testing and Revaccination
Brian H. Shirts,ab Ryan J. Welch,b and Marc Roger Couturiercorresponding authorab
aDepartment of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
bARUP Institute for Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
corresponding authorCorresponding author.
Address correspondence to Marc Roger Couturier, marc.couturier/at/aruplab.com.
B.H.S. and R.J.W. contributed equally to this work.
Received August 13, 2012; Revisions requested October 10, 2012; Accepted January 14, 2013.
Abstract
Retrospective analysis of IgG test results and patterns for measles, mumps, and rubella revealed generally high seropositivity rates, with that of mumps being the lowest. A simplified cost analysis shows that when there is a suspicion of nonimmunity, serological testing may be cheaper than vaccination.
Since the introduction of the measles, mumps, and rubella single injectable vaccine (MMR) in 1971, the incidence of each infection has declined and is now very low in the United States (1). Nevertheless, maintaining population immunity is important to prevent outbreaks. Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) considers receipt of one documented dose of the MMR vaccine as evidence of immunity to rubella and two documented doses of the MMR vaccine as evidence of immunity for mumps and measles (2). In the absence of vaccination documentation, serological testing is accepted as laboratory evidence of immunity (2).
We investigated immunization screening practices using retrospective analysis of measles, mumps, and rubella IgG testing performed at ARUP Laboratories (Salt Lake City, UT). Our goals were to illustrate seroprevalence rates as a surrogate for laboratory evidence of immunity among individuals screened, to evaluate observed ordering practices, and to estimate potential cost-effectiveness of vaccination versus serological screening.
This study was approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board (IRB no. 7275). A deidentified data set was created of all 159,257 tests for measles, mumps, and rubella IgG antibodies ordered at ARUP Laboratories between 1 February 2011 and 31 January 2012. We linked measles, mumps, and/or rubella testing for each sample, yielding results for 98,023 individuals from 646 institutions in 44 states. Antibody titers were measured for more than one virus in 51,026 individuals and for all three viruses in 10,210 individuals. Testing for IgG antibodies was performed at ARUP Laboratories according to the manufacturer's guidelines. Briefly, measles and mumps testing were performed using enzyme immunoassays (EIA) manufactured by SeraQuest (Miami, FL) by following standard EIA protocols with sample index value cutoffs determined by the manufacturer of <0.90 (negative), 0.90 to 1.09 (equivocal), and >1.09 (positive). Rubella testing was performed using the Siemens rubella quantitative IgG chemiluminescent EIA on the Siemens IMMULITE 2000, with cutoffs of <5 IU/ml (negative), 5 to 9 IU/ml (equivocal), and >10 IU/ml (positive).
IgG seropositivity rates were high for all three viruses, regardless of test order combination ( Table 1). Seropositivity rates were highest for rubella and lowest for mumps, which correlates with previous studies that show mumps titers decrease most rapidly (38). It was assumed that the 10,210 individuals tested for all three viruses were tested for immunization status screening rather than for acute infection, since natural infection with three viruses would be extremely uncommon in the United States, and recommendations from ACIP would drive this testing (9). Additionally, the proportion of individuals positive for any single viral titer was significantly lower (P < 0.001) than when all three titers were tested, indicating that single orders may be testing for natural infection rather than immunity (Table 2).
Table 1
Table 1
Serostatus in individuals tested for measles IgG, mumps IgG, and rubella IgG (n = 10,210)
Table 2
Table 2
Seropositivity rates of measles IgG, mumps IgG, and rubella IgG stratified by test ordering patterns
Of individuals tested in our laboratory for more than one virus, 77.1% were tested for both measles and mumps IgG and 20.0% were tested for measles, mumps, and rubella IgG. The high proportion of testing that is ordered for measles and mumps IgG in combination is likely a result of the ACIP guidelines, which consider persons with a single dose of a rubella vaccine as immune; this, combined with the disparate signs and symptoms of measles and mumps, suggests that this test order combination is being used as a marker for vaccine-induced immunity and not acute infection (2). By looking at seropositivity rates when all three tests are ordered, it can be calculated that if only measles and mumps IgG titers are measured, 2.6% of individuals requiring vaccination would be missed (individuals that would test positive for both measles and mumps IgG but should be revaccinated as a result of having a negative or equivocal rubella IgG titer; Table 1). Because of the low positivity rate of mumps IgG relative to other viral titers, it may by hypothesized that this alone could be used as a determination of whether revaccination is needed. However, if mumps IgG was ordered alone, 8.6% of individuals requiring revaccination would be missed (summation of all patients that had all three tests ordered that had a positive mumps IgG titer but a negative measles IgG and/or rubella IgG; Table 1).
A simplified cost analysis was done to determine whether it is appropriate to test for all three viral titers and follow up with vaccination if necessary or simply vaccinate without performing any serological testing. Because ACIP guidelines require two doses of the MMR vaccine as evidence of immunity for measles and mumps and a single dose for rubella, individuals lacking immunity were partitioned appropriately. To determine the cost of testing, the Medicare reimbursement cost of $57.99 for all three tests was used (10). The cost of the vaccine is $52.07 based on the CDC vaccine fee schedule (11). For this analysis, only the 10,210 patients with all three tests ordered were used. A weighted cost per patient was determined to be $85.81 per patient if testing was performed followed by appropriate vaccination based on the negative viral titers (Table 3). This cost is greater than the cost of a single vaccine; however, it is less than the cost of two vaccines, indicating there may be cost savings if a single vaccine is administered without serological testing in cases where immunity to rubella is of greatest concern but not measles or mumps (as the case may be in women of childbearing age) (12). The recommendation for vaccination in certain cases without serological testing can also be made due to the low incidence of vaccine-related complications, especially in individuals who may have been previously vaccinated (2, 13). It is important to note that this scenario is calculated at the Medicare reimbursement rate, which may not be an accurate price for all institutions. Each facility must determine its cost of testing and whether it outweighs the cost of vaccination alone using this simple model.
Table 3
Table 3
Weighted cost of serological testing for all three virus antibody titers plus vaccination or vaccination alone
According to the data presented, which is likely representative of individuals without other evidence of immunity and represents a large geographic sampling that can effectively account for regional differences in vaccination rates, laboratory evidence of immunity to measles, mumps, and rubella appears to be high in this U.S. population. It is important to note that while serology can be used as evidence of immunity in regard to vaccination guidelines, it cannot necessarily be correlated with protective immunity (14). These data also outline the potential feasibility of different approaches to ensure measles, mumps, and rubella immunity in targeted populations. For instance, the common practice of screening measles and mumps antibodies as a surrogate for vaccine-induced immunity will identify a majority of nonimmune individuals, whereas screening for only mumps antibodies would be ill advised for identifying nonimmune individuals. Institutions using the latter approach should strongly reconsider this policy based on this analysis. While it is important to balance financial expenses in determining institutional policy, screening for immunity cannot be subjected to insensitivity of the algorithm adopted. The framework of this data set allows institutions to apply their own costs of testing for both serology and vaccination in order to formulate appropriate decisions regarding institutional policies on immunity screening.
Footnotes
Published ahead of print 23 January 2013
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1987. Mumps—United States, 1985–1986. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 36: 151– 155. [PubMed]
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1998. Measles, mumps, and rubella—vaccine use and strategies for elimination of measles, rubella, and congenital rubella syndrome and control of mumps: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 47: 1– 57. [PubMed]
3. Date AA, Kyaw MH, Rue AM, Klahn J, Obrecht L, Krohn T, Rowland J, Rubin S, Safranek TJ, Bellini WJ, Dayan GH. 2008. Long-term persistence of mumps antibody after receipt of 2 measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccinations and antibody response after a third MMR vaccination among a university population. J. Infect. Dis. 197: 1662– 1668. [PubMed]
4. Davidkin I, Jokinen S, Broman M, Leinikki P, Peltola H. 2008. Persistence of measles, mumps, and rubella antibodies in an MMR-vaccinated cohort: a 20-year follow-up. J. Infect. Dis. 197: 950– 956. [PubMed]
5. Dayan GH, Quinlisk MP, Parker AA, Barskey AE, Harris ML, Schwartz JM, Hunt K, Finley CG, Leschinsky DP, O'Keefe AL, Clayton J, Kightlinger LK, Dietle EG, Berg J, Kenyon CL, Goldstein ST, Stokley SK, Redd SB, Rota PA, Rota J, Bi D, Roush SW, Bridges CB, Santibanez TA, Parashar U, Bellini WJ, Seward JF. 2008. Recent resurgence of mumps in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 358: 1580– 1589. [PubMed]
6. LeBaron CW, Forghani B, Beck C, Brown C, Bi D, Cossen C, Sullivan BJ. 2009. Persistence of mumps antibodies after 2 doses of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. J. Infect. Dis. 199: 552– 560. [PubMed]
7. LeBaron CW, Forghani B, Matter L, Reef SE, Beck C, Bi D, Cossen C, Sullivan BJ. 2009. Persistence of rubella antibodies after 2 doses of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. J. Infect. Dis. 200: 888– 899. [PubMed]
8. Peltola H, Jokinen S, Paunio M, Hovi T, Davidkin I. 2008. Measles, mumps, and rubella in Finland: 25 years of a nationwide elimination programme. Lancet Infect. Dis. 8: 796– 803. [PubMed]
9. Immunization Action Coalition 2011, posting date. Ask the experts: measles, mumps and rubella. Immunization Action Coalition, St. Paul, MN: http://www.immunize.org/askexperts/experts[lowem]mmr.asp .
10. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2012. Clinical diagnostic laboratory fee schedule 2012. CMS, Baltimore, MD: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/ClinicalLabFeeSched/index.html .
11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 6 July 2012, posting date. CDC vaccine price list. CDC, Atlanta, GA: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/awardees/vaccine-management/price-list/2012/2012-07-06.html .
12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2012. Recommended adult immunization schedule—United States, 2012. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 61: 1– 7.
13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2011. General recommendations on immunization—recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm. Rep. 60: 1– 64. [PubMed]
14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 12 November 2009, posting date. Acceptable presumptive evidence of immunity: mumps prevention and control in healthcare settings. CDC, Atlanta, GA: http://www.cdc.gov/mumps/prev-control-settings/evidence-immunity.html .
Articles from Clinical and Vaccine Immunology : CVI are provided here courtesy of
American Society for Microbiology (ASM)