Diagnostic Performance and Comparative Evaluation of the Architect, Liaison, and Platelia Epstein-Barr Virus Antibody Assays

Younhee Park; Borae G. Park; Jihye Ha; Hyon Suk Kim

doi: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, Borae G. Park, Jihye Ha, Hyon Suk Kim

Department of Laboratory Medicine

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	458-465
Number of pages	8
Journal	Annals of laboratory medicine
Volume	38
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2018.38.5.458
Publication status	Published - 2018

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The authors wish to thank Abbott Diagnostics (Wiesbaden, Germany) that provided the reagent kits for Architect CMIA serological analysis free of charge. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Publisher Copyright:
© Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Clinical Biochemistry
Biochemistry, medical

Access to Document

10.3343/alm.2018.38.5.458

Cite this

@article{6e02b2f3808c410e9d01f3a5dd42c837,

title = "Diagnostic Performance and Comparative Evaluation of the Architect, Liaison, and Platelia Epstein-Barr Virus Antibody Assays",

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.",

author = "Younhee Park and Park, {Borae G.} and Jihye Ha and Kim, {Hyon Suk}",

note = "Funding Information: The authors wish to thank Abbott Diagnostics (Wiesbaden, Germany) that provided the reagent kits for Architect CMIA serological analysis free of charge. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine",

year = "2018",

doi = "10.3343/alm.2018.38.5.458",

language = "English",

volume = "38",

pages = "458--465",

journal = "Annals of Laboratory Medicine",

issn = "2234-3806",

publisher = "Seoul National University",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diagnostic Performance and Comparative Evaluation of the Architect, Liaison, and Platelia Epstein-Barr Virus Antibody Assays

AU - Park, Younhee

AU - Park, Borae G.

AU - Ha, Jihye

AU - Kim, Hyon Suk

N1 - Funding Information: The authors wish to thank Abbott Diagnostics (Wiesbaden, Germany) that provided the reagent kits for Architect CMIA serological analysis free of charge. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Publisher Copyright: © Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048153281&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85048153281&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3343/alm.2018.38.5.458

DO - 10.3343/alm.2018.38.5.458

M3 - Article

C2 - 29797817

AN - SCOPUS:85048153281

SN - 2234-3806

VL - 38

SP - 458

EP - 465

JO - Annals of Laboratory Medicine

JF - Annals of Laboratory Medicine

IS - 5

ER -

Diagnostic Performance and Comparative Evaluation of the Architect, Liaison, and Platelia Epstein-Barr Virus Antibody Assays

Abstract

Bibliographical note

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this