Limits...
An analysis of the benefit of using HEV genotype 3 antigens in detecting anti-HEV IgG in a European population.

Schnegg A, Bürgisser P, André C, Kenfak-Foguena A, Canellini G, Moradpour D, Abravanel F, Izopet J, Cavassini M, Darling KE - PLoS ONE (2013)

Bottom Line: All acute HEV samples and 124/550 blood donor samples were positive with ≥1 assay.Of PCR-confirmed patient samples, 45%, 65%, 95% and 55% were positive with MP Diagnostics, Dia.Pro, Fortress and recomLine, respectively.In our single blood donor population, we observe wide variations in measured seroprevalence, from 4.2% to 21.8%, depending on the assay used.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

ABSTRACT

Background: The benefit of using serological assays based on HEV genotype 3 in industrialised settings is unclear. We compared the performance of serological kits based on antigens from different HEV genotypes.

Methods: Taking 20 serum samples from patients in southwest France with acute HEV infection (positive PCR for HEV genotype 3) and 550 anonymised samples from blood donors in southwest Switzerland, we tested for anti-HEV IgG using three enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) (MP Diagnostics, Dia.Pro and Fortress) based on genotype 1 and 2 antigens, and one immunodot assay (Mikrogen Diagnostik recomLine HEV IgG/IgM) based on genotype 1 and 3 antigens.

Results: All acute HEV samples and 124/550 blood donor samples were positive with ≥1 assay. Of PCR-confirmed patient samples, 45%, 65%, 95% and 55% were positive with MP Diagnostics, Dia.Pro, Fortress and recomLine, respectively. Of blood donor samples positive with ≥1 assay, 120/124 (97%), were positive with Fortress, 19/124 (15%) were positive with all EIAs and 51/124 (41%) were positive with recomLine. Of 11/20 patient samples positive with recomLine, stronger reactivity for HEV genotype 3 was observed in 1/11(9%), and equal reactivity for both genotypes in 5/11 (45.5%).

Conclusions: Although recomLine contains HEV genotype 3, it has lower sensitivity than Fortress in acute HEV infection and fails to identify infection as being due to this genotype in approximately 45% of patients. In our single blood donor population, we observe wide variations in measured seroprevalence, from 4.2% to 21.8%, depending on the assay used.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Correlation between strength of reaction and recomLine score.RecomLine immunodot score and optical density (OD)/cut off ratio for samples positive only with the Fortress kit and those positive with all three EIAs. The shaded zone demarcates samples which were positive both with Fortress (according to our study protocol, where an OD/cut off ratio ≥1.0 is considered positive) and with recomLine.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3646942&req=5

pone-0062980-g001: Correlation between strength of reaction and recomLine score.RecomLine immunodot score and optical density (OD)/cut off ratio for samples positive only with the Fortress kit and those positive with all three EIAs. The shaded zone demarcates samples which were positive both with Fortress (according to our study protocol, where an OD/cut off ratio ≥1.0 is considered positive) and with recomLine.

Mentions: Examining all the donor samples, we observed a correlation between the Fortress test reaction strength and the recomLine score (r = 0.74, P = 0.0001) (Figure 1). However, for the Dia.Pro (r = 0.479, P = 0.05) and the MP Diagnostics tests (r = 0.345, P = 0.12), this correlation was less strong.


An analysis of the benefit of using HEV genotype 3 antigens in detecting anti-HEV IgG in a European population.

Schnegg A, Bürgisser P, André C, Kenfak-Foguena A, Canellini G, Moradpour D, Abravanel F, Izopet J, Cavassini M, Darling KE - PLoS ONE (2013)

Correlation between strength of reaction and recomLine score.RecomLine immunodot score and optical density (OD)/cut off ratio for samples positive only with the Fortress kit and those positive with all three EIAs. The shaded zone demarcates samples which were positive both with Fortress (according to our study protocol, where an OD/cut off ratio ≥1.0 is considered positive) and with recomLine.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3646942&req=5

pone-0062980-g001: Correlation between strength of reaction and recomLine score.RecomLine immunodot score and optical density (OD)/cut off ratio for samples positive only with the Fortress kit and those positive with all three EIAs. The shaded zone demarcates samples which were positive both with Fortress (according to our study protocol, where an OD/cut off ratio ≥1.0 is considered positive) and with recomLine.
Mentions: Examining all the donor samples, we observed a correlation between the Fortress test reaction strength and the recomLine score (r = 0.74, P = 0.0001) (Figure 1). However, for the Dia.Pro (r = 0.479, P = 0.05) and the MP Diagnostics tests (r = 0.345, P = 0.12), this correlation was less strong.

Bottom Line: All acute HEV samples and 124/550 blood donor samples were positive with ≥1 assay.Of PCR-confirmed patient samples, 45%, 65%, 95% and 55% were positive with MP Diagnostics, Dia.Pro, Fortress and recomLine, respectively.In our single blood donor population, we observe wide variations in measured seroprevalence, from 4.2% to 21.8%, depending on the assay used.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

ABSTRACT

Background: The benefit of using serological assays based on HEV genotype 3 in industrialised settings is unclear. We compared the performance of serological kits based on antigens from different HEV genotypes.

Methods: Taking 20 serum samples from patients in southwest France with acute HEV infection (positive PCR for HEV genotype 3) and 550 anonymised samples from blood donors in southwest Switzerland, we tested for anti-HEV IgG using three enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) (MP Diagnostics, Dia.Pro and Fortress) based on genotype 1 and 2 antigens, and one immunodot assay (Mikrogen Diagnostik recomLine HEV IgG/IgM) based on genotype 1 and 3 antigens.

Results: All acute HEV samples and 124/550 blood donor samples were positive with ≥1 assay. Of PCR-confirmed patient samples, 45%, 65%, 95% and 55% were positive with MP Diagnostics, Dia.Pro, Fortress and recomLine, respectively. Of blood donor samples positive with ≥1 assay, 120/124 (97%), were positive with Fortress, 19/124 (15%) were positive with all EIAs and 51/124 (41%) were positive with recomLine. Of 11/20 patient samples positive with recomLine, stronger reactivity for HEV genotype 3 was observed in 1/11(9%), and equal reactivity for both genotypes in 5/11 (45.5%).

Conclusions: Although recomLine contains HEV genotype 3, it has lower sensitivity than Fortress in acute HEV infection and fails to identify infection as being due to this genotype in approximately 45% of patients. In our single blood donor population, we observe wide variations in measured seroprevalence, from 4.2% to 21.8%, depending on the assay used.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus