Comparative sensitivity of commercial tests for hepatitis E genotype 3 virus antibody detection

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) acute infection is often diagnosed only by anti‐HEV IgM ELISA methods, whose sensitivity varies, according to different reports. Reports assessing the specificity of commercial assays for anti‐HEV IgG testing are scarce, and estimates of sensitivity and specificity are both c...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of medical virology 2015-11, Vol.87 (11), p.1934-1939
Main Authors: Avellon, Ana, Morago, Lucia, Garcia-Galera del Carmen, Maria, Munoz, Milagros, Echevarría, Jose-Manuel
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
anti-HEV
comparative sensitivity
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay - methods
Genotype
Genotype & phenotype
Hepatitis
Hepatitis Antibodies - blood
Hepatitis E - diagnosis
Hepatitis E - virology
Hepatitis E virus
Hepatitis E virus - classification
Hepatitis E virus - genetics
Hepatitis E virus - immunology
HEV
Humans
IgG
IgM
Immunoglobulin G - blood
Immunoglobulin M - blood
Immunoglobulins
Sensitivity and Specificity
Virology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Hepatitis E virus (HEV) acute infection is often diagnosed only by anti‐HEV IgM ELISA methods, whose sensitivity varies, according to different reports. Reports assessing the specificity of commercial assays for anti‐HEV IgG testing are scarce, and estimates of sensitivity and specificity are both controversial. The aim of this work is to assess the sensitivity of different commercial techniques for HEV genotype 3 antibody (anti‐HEV) IgM and IgG detection in entirely specific sample panels including both high and low antibody concentrations. The anti‐HEV IgM and IgG ELISA methods compared were: DSI, Mikrogen, Wantai, Euroimmun, MP, and Dia.pro. The rapid test All Diag was also included in the anti‐HEV IgM comparison. Our results show that low anti‐HEV IgM concentrations were better detected by DSI, Mikrogen, and All Diag, these tests being the most sensitive in our study. Euroimmun, MP and Dia.pro gave concordant results, showing lower sensitivity than the others. Regarding anti‐HEV IgG our results revealed similar anti‐HEV IgG sensitivity. Furthermore, there was a striking overall lack of concordance among the results. We present a thorough review of previous comparative reports, with particular reference to the anti‐HEV IgG comparison, since published results differ from ours. This discrepancy may be related to the improved versions of the tests for MP and Dia.pro that we employed. J. Med. Virol. 87:1934–1939, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
ISSN:0146-6615
1096-9071
DOI:10.1002/jmv.24251