An inter-laboratory study of anti-HCV antibody detection in salavary samples

Lucidarme, Damien; Decoster, A.; Delamare, Catherine; Schmitt, Christophe; Kozlowski, David J.; Harbonnier, Jean; Jacob, Claude; Cyran, C.; Forzy, G.; Defer, Christine; Ilèf, D.; Emmanuelli, Lulien; Filoche, B

doi:10.1016/s0016-5085(03)83562-x

Cited by 5 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Besides, subjects with low levels of IgG anti-HCV cannot be identified by using immunoassays that recognize only immunoglobulins of the class IgG. Recognition of the additional classes (IgM) of anti-HCV antibodies appears to increase the sensitivity of tests on saliva (Lucidarme et al 2003). Our results demonstrated that the sensitivity observed is appropriate for studies of prevalence in the population, although it has been inappropriate for disease diagnostic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Detection of hepatitis A, B, and C virus-specific antibodies using oral fluid for epidemiological studies

Amado

Villar

Paula

et al. 2006

Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Detection of hepatitis A, B, and C virus-specific antibodies using oral fluid for epidemiological studies

Amado

Villar

Paula

et al. 2006

Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the present study, the best performance in detecting anti‐HCV was achieved when Salivette samples and an optimized Radim EIA were used, presenting 93.9% sensitivity and 100% specificity. In previous studies using Salivette samples, the sensitivities and specificities varied between 71 and 94.4% and 93 and 100%, respectively, depending on the detection method chosen (3, 4, 15, 29, 31, 33). Regarding spitting samples, in the present study, the sensitivity and specificity were 90.9 and 95.24, respectively, whereas in other studies, the sensitivities and specificities range from 0 to 90% and 100%, respectively, using immunochromatographic or chemiluminescence assays (2, 30).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Several studies have reported the detection of antibodies against hepatitis C virus (anti‐HCV) in saliva samples using different methodologies, such as enzyme immunoassays (EIA) or immunochromatographic tests (1–10). In these studies, assay sensitivity was found to vary from 0% to 100%, likely due to differences related to sample collection methods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An evaluation of different saliva collection methods for detection of antibodies against hepatitis C virus (anti‐HCV)

Cruz

Marques

Villela-Nogueira

et al. 2012

J Oral Pathology Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

J Oral Pathol Med (2012) 41: 793–800 Background: Saliva samples can be used as an alternative fluid for against hepatitis C virus (anti‐HCV) detection owing to the ease of collection and excellent acceptability. This study was conducted to optimize a commercial enzyme immunoassay (EIA) to detect anti‐HCV in saliva samples. Methods: Ninety‐six individuals donated paired serum and saliva samples that were obtained, using a commercial device (Salivette) and spitting into a sterile container. Initially, elution buffer for the Salivette samples, sample volume, incubation time and temperature, and two different anti‐HCV EIAs were evaluated. Using the optimized assay, three methods for cut‐off calculation were also evaluated. Results: A 20‐fold increase in the sample volume for both collection methods was needed. Moreover, the Radim assay was the most appropriate assay for anti‐HCV detection in saliva samples, and the quality parameters were increased when a ROC curve was used to determine the cut‐off value. Using this optimized assay, the sensitivities, specificities, accuracies, positive and negative predictive values were above 90% for saliva obtained using both the Salivette and spitting methods. Using this assay, discordant false‐negative results were obtained for only two Salivette samples and five spitting samples. The concordance kappa was 93% for the Salivette method and 86.1% for the spitting method, demonstrating excellent performance. Conclusions: Saliva samples obtained for both methods can be employed for anti‐HCV detection among HCV‐infected or HCV‐suspected cases, but several modifications must be performed on commercial EIAs to obtain good results. Moreover, samples obtained with commercial devices are more appropriate for anti‐HCV detection in saliva samples.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, this selection has probably not biased the performance of either assay because HCV-RNA negativity has been associated with lower HCV antibody titers. 33 Thirdly, the number of HIV/HCV co-infected patients was low and larger studies are needed to assess the performance of the cEIA and HCV POC in this population. Finally, although blinded from the HCV status, the HCV POC was carried out by trained lab staff in the hospital.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of an antigen–antibody combined assay for hepatitis C virus testing without venipuncture

Larrat

Bourdon

Baccard

et al. 2012

Journal of Clinical Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An inter-laboratory study of anti-HCV antibody detection in salavary samples

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Detection of hepatitis A, B, and C virus-specific antibodies using oral fluid for epidemiological studies

Detection of hepatitis A, B, and C virus-specific antibodies using oral fluid for epidemiological studies

An evaluation of different saliva collection methods for detection of antibodies against hepatitis C virus (anti‐HCV)

Performance of an antigen–antibody combined assay for hepatitis C virus testing without venipuncture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About