Milagros Muñoz-Chimeno, Nazaret Díaz-Sánchez, Lucía Morago, Vanessa Rodríguez-Paredes, Silvia Barturen, Álvaro Rodríguez-Recio, Maira Alejandra García-Lugo, Maria Isabel Zamora, María Mateo, Mónica Sánchez-Martínez, Ana Avellón
{"title":"Performance Comparison of Four Hepatitis E Antibodies Detection Methods","authors":"Milagros Muñoz-Chimeno, Nazaret Díaz-Sánchez, Lucía Morago, Vanessa Rodríguez-Paredes, Silvia Barturen, Álvaro Rodríguez-Recio, Maira Alejandra García-Lugo, Maria Isabel Zamora, María Mateo, Mónica Sánchez-Martínez, Ana Avellón","doi":"10.3390/microorganisms12091875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"HEV antibody detection constitutes the main screening test for HEV infection. The aim of this study is to compare the sensitivity and specificity of four techniques: LIAISON® MUREX DiaSorin anti-HEV IgG and anti-HEV IgM assays, Hepatitis E VIRCLIA® IgM and IgG monotests, WANTAI HEV-IgM and IgG ELISA and VIDAS® anti-HEV IgM and IgG tests in five panels of samples configurated according to the immunoblot (RecomLine, Mikrogen, Neuss, Germany). Anti-HEV IgM sensitivity in the acute phase was 100% in all techniques, while sensitivity, including the immediate convalescence phase, was 96.74% for LIAISON®, 83.14% for VIRCLIA®, 84.78% for WANTAI and 88.04% for VIDAS®. Anti-HEV IgM specificity was 100% for both LIAISON® and VIRCLIA®. Anti-HEV IgM WANTAI agreed with VIRCLIA® with a good Kappa coefficient (κ = 0.71). Anti-HEV IgG post-infection sensitivity was 100% for LIAISON®, VIDAS® and VIRCLIA® and 99% for WANTAI. Anti-HEV IgG specificity reached 97.17% for LIAISON and 88.68% for VIRCLIA®. Our results demonstrated a better capacity of LIAISON® MUREX anti-HEV IgM than that of competitors for detecting acute infections as well as accurate anti-HEV IgG results and in how to resolve them.","PeriodicalId":18667,"journal":{"name":"Microorganisms","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microorganisms","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12091875","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
HEV antibody detection constitutes the main screening test for HEV infection. The aim of this study is to compare the sensitivity and specificity of four techniques: LIAISON® MUREX DiaSorin anti-HEV IgG and anti-HEV IgM assays, Hepatitis E VIRCLIA® IgM and IgG monotests, WANTAI HEV-IgM and IgG ELISA and VIDAS® anti-HEV IgM and IgG tests in five panels of samples configurated according to the immunoblot (RecomLine, Mikrogen, Neuss, Germany). Anti-HEV IgM sensitivity in the acute phase was 100% in all techniques, while sensitivity, including the immediate convalescence phase, was 96.74% for LIAISON®, 83.14% for VIRCLIA®, 84.78% for WANTAI and 88.04% for VIDAS®. Anti-HEV IgM specificity was 100% for both LIAISON® and VIRCLIA®. Anti-HEV IgM WANTAI agreed with VIRCLIA® with a good Kappa coefficient (κ = 0.71). Anti-HEV IgG post-infection sensitivity was 100% for LIAISON®, VIDAS® and VIRCLIA® and 99% for WANTAI. Anti-HEV IgG specificity reached 97.17% for LIAISON and 88.68% for VIRCLIA®. Our results demonstrated a better capacity of LIAISON® MUREX anti-HEV IgM than that of competitors for detecting acute infections as well as accurate anti-HEV IgG results and in how to resolve them.
期刊介绍:
Microorganisms (ISSN 2076-2607) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal which provides an advanced forum for studies related to prokaryotic and eukaryotic microorganisms, viruses and prions. It publishes reviews, research papers and communications. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation or experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary electronic material.