Evaluations of commercial West Nile virus immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM enzyme immunoassays show the value of continuous validation.

West Nile virus was introduced into the United States in 1999 and in only four seasons has become endemic east of the Rocky Mountains. Recently, immunoglobulin M (IgM)-capture enzyme immunoassays for the detection of West Nile virus-specific IgM and indirect IgG enzyme immunoassays for the detection of IgG antibodies against West Nile virus were made available from Focus Technologies and PANBIO, Inc. We evaluated these commercial IgG and IgM test systems and determined agreement, sensitivity, and specificity for the assays, compared to immunofluorescence assay and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's IgM-capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Initially, the Focus and PANBIO IgM enzyme immunoassays had at least 95% agreement, sensitivity, and specificity, and, based on the 95% confidence intervals, both IgM-capture assays performed similarly. The IgG assays also performed well, although the Focus IgG assay demonstrated greater specificity (98.8%) and the PANBIO IgG assay demonstrated greater sensitivity (99.3%). However, for 400 samples consecutively submitted for West Nile virus antibody testing during 2 days of the 2003 West Nile virus season, agreement, clinical sensitivity, and clinical specificity were 93.1, 98.0, and 92.4%, respectively, for the PANBIO IgM assay and were 97.4, 100.0, and 97.1%, respectively, for the Focus IgM assay. The specificities observed in this second evaluation equates to an overall false-positivity rate of 6.3% in the PANBIO West Nile virus IgM-capture ELISA versus 2.5% with the Focus West Nile virus IgM-capture ELISA. This experience demonstrates the importance of continuously evaluating the performance of an assay in order to detect any changes in assay performance as the test population evolves.