Ann Lab Med 2018; 38(5): 458-465  https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2018.38.5.458
Diagnostic Performance and Comparative Evaluation of the Architect, Liaison, and Platelia Epstein-Barr Virus Antibody Assays
Younhee Park, M.D.1, Borae G. Park, M.D.2, Jihye Ha, M.D.1, and Hyon-Suk Kim, M.D.1
Department of Laboratory Medicine1, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul; Department of Laboratory Medicine2, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Corresponding author: Hyon-Suk Kim
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5662-7740
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea
Tel: +82-2-2228-2443
Fax: +82-2-364-1583
E-mail: kimhs54@yuhs.ac
Received: August 17, 2017; Revised: November 28, 2017; Accepted: May 3, 2018; Published online: September 1, 2018.
© Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine. All rights reserved.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Background: Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) is one of the most prevalent causes of viral infection in humans. EBV infection stage (acute, past, or absent infection) is typically determined using a combination of assays that detect EBV-specific markers, such as IgG and IgM antibodies against the EBV viral capsid antigen (VCA) and IgG antibodies against the EBV nuclear antigen (EBNA). We compared the diagnostic performance and agreement of results between three commercial EBV antibody assays using an EBV performance panel (SeraCare Life Science, Milford, MA, USA) as a reference.
Methods: EBV antibody tests of EBV VCA IgM, VCA IgG, and EBNA IgG antibodies were performed by the Architect (Abbott Diagnostics, Wiesbaden, Germany), Liaison (DiaSorin, Saluggia, Italy), and Platelia (Bio-Rad, Marnes-la-Coquette, France) assays. Agreement between the three assays was evaluated using 279 clinical samples, and EBV DNA and antibody test results were compared.
Results: The three EBV antibody assays showed good diagnostic performance with good and excellent agreement with the performance panel (kappa coefficient, >0.6). The overall VCA IgM positivity rate was higher in EBV DNA-positive samples than in EBV DNA-negative samples for all three EBV antibody assays (P=0.02). The three EBV antibody assays exhibited good agreement in results for the clinical samples.
Conclusions: The diagnostic performance of the three EBV antibody assays was acceptable, and they showed comparable agreement in results for the clinical samples.
Keywords: Epstein-Barr virus, Assay, Diagnostic performance, DNA, Antibody, Immunoglobulin



This Article

e-submission

Archives

Indexed/Covered by