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

• Published in: Journal of medical virology Vol. 87; no. 11; pp. 1934 - 1939
• Main Authors: Avellon, Ana, Morago, Lucia, Garcia-Galera del Carmen, Maria, Munoz, Milagros, Echevarría, Jose-Manuel
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01-11-2015; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• 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; anti-HEV; HEV; IgG; comparative sensitivity; IgM
• ISSN: 0146-6615; 1096-9071
• DOI: 10.1002/jmv.24251

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.