Performance of Two Commercially Available Automated Immunoassays for the Determination of Epstein-Barr Virus Serological Status

Abstract

<jats:title>ABSTRACT</jats:title><jats:p>This study evaluated the performance of two automated Vidas (V) and Liaison (L) immunoassays for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) serology. The detection of the viral capsid antigen (VCA) IgM, the VCA/early antigen (VCA/EA) IgG, and the Epstein-Barr nuclear antigen (EBNA) IgG was assessed on 526 sera collected for routine EBV testing in immunocompetent subjects. The determination of expected EBV status (186 EBV primary infections, 183 past EBV infections, and 157 EBV-seronegative individuals) was based on results of routine laboratory enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) together with clinical data. The sensitivity and specificity of each individual marker were determined in comparison to the expected EBV status. The agreement between the V and L profiles and the expected EBV status was established through the interpretation of combinations of the different EBV markers. Statistically significant differences between the two tests were found for the specificity of the VCA IgM marker (96.2% for V versus 93.2% for L), the sensitivity of the VCA/EA IgG marker (89% for V versus 94% for L), and the specificity of the EBNA IgG marker (96.5% for V versus 74.2% for L). The results determined for the two assays with respect to overall agreement with the established expected EBV status were not significantly different (89.7% for V versus 88.2% for L), with discrepancies mainly observed in sera referenced as primary infections. These findings demonstrated the similar performances of the Vidas and the Liaison assays for the establishment of an EBV serological status using the VCA, EA, and EBNA markers.</jats:p>

Evaluation of 4 methods for the serological diagnosis of Epstein–Barr virus infection using an immunofluorescence assay as the reference method

“…Comparisons between ELFA and IFA led Koidl et al to report that ELFA may be an alternative to IFA testing, especially in high-throughput laboratories (11). To establish EBV profiles without using standard IFA measurements, Lupo et al analyzed the results of ELFA and chemiluminescence assays and found that they performed similarly (13). We found a good correlation between ELFA and IFA for the detection of VCA IgG, VCA IgM, and EBNA IgG in this study.…”

Evaluation of the Architect Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) Viral Capsid Antigen (VCA) IgG, VCA IgM, and EBV Nuclear Antigen 1 IgG Chemiluminescent Immunoassays for Detection of EBV Antibodies and Categorization of EBV Infection Status Using Immunofluorescence Assays as the Reference Method

“…As stated above, it has been reported that EIAs might display better sensitivities than IF assay for VCA antibody detection (1). The above figures are in the upper range (74 to 95%) reported for several commercially available CLIAs or EIAs that were compared with immunofluorescence, Western blot, or line blot assays as reference assays (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10).…”

“…VCA IgG, VCA IgM, and EBNA-1 IgG antibodies are detected concomitantly in 3 to 6.4% of samples subjected to routine EBV testing (8,9,12). In most cases, this profile reflects a past EBV infection, although it may also correspond to a relatively recent EBV-related primary infection, an EBV reactivation episode, a cross-reaction with CMV IgM in the setting of a primary CMV infection, or a state of polyclonal stimulation by a heterologous infectious agent (1,13,14).…”

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

“…Although the immunofluorescence assay (IFA) is considered the gold standard for the detection of VCA and EBNA IgG [ 9 ], chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIA) using automated analyzers are also widely used because of their objective interpretation of results, high throughput, and low labor intensiveness [ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ]. Different commercial EBV antibody assays often show varying test results, thus hindering the interpretation of patient EBV infection status [ 9 10 16 ].…”

“…Although many studies have compared commercial EBV assays [ 9 10 11 12 13 14 ], the diagnostic performance of the assays has not been evaluated using a standard EBV performance panel (SeraCare Life Science, Milford, MA, USA) covering various EBV infection status. To fill this gap, we evaluated the diagnostic performances of three commercial EBV antibody assays, Architect (Abbott Diagnostics, Wiesbaden, Germany), Liaison (DiaSorin, Saluggia, Italy), and Platelia (Bio-Rad, Marnes-la-Coquette, France) assays, using an EBV performance panel and compared the results of these three commercial assays in clinical samples of patients with suspected EBV infection.…”