Comparison of radioimmunoassay and enzyme immunoassay for detecting hepatitis B surface antigen in serum from freshly donated blood and selected blood products.

Hopkins, Robert; Ross, Sylvia; Jordan, Tony; Watt, A.D.

doi:10.1136/jcp.31.10.1000

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In another study, Hepanostika EIA was 2-20 times less sensitive than Ausria I1 RIA and gave a false negative rate of 4% (Hyland et al, 1979). A similar study found comparable sensitivity between the two methods and a false positive rate of 0.48% (Hopkins et al, 1978). False negative results with HBsAg assays constitute a far greater risk than false positives.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…EIA techniques have been applied successfully to the detection of various antibodies and antigens (Wisdom, 1976) including HBsAg (Wolters et al, 1976;Halbert and Anken, 1977;Wei et al, 1977). EIA kits for HBsAg testing have become available commercially and have been compared with RIA (Hopkins et al, 1978;Kacaki et al, 1978;Hyland et al, 1979;Haas and Hotz, 1980). These studies compared a direct EIA, (Hepanostika@, Organon, Teknika), with RIA (Ausria II@, Abbott Laboratories) in tests with serum panels obtained in Europe and Australia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of enzyme immunoassay with radioimmunoassay for the detection of hepatitis B surface antigen

Hendry

Herzog

Herrman

et al. 1983

Journal of Medical Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY. A direct solid-phase enzyme immunoassay (Auszyme I) and a direct solid-phase radioimmunoassay (Ausria 11) for detection of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) were compared in tests with a panel of 347 human sera. Compared with RIA, EIA showed a sensitivity of 98% with 153 HBsAg-positive sera and a specificity of 99% with 194 HBsAg-negative sera. Sera that gave false negative and false positive results by EIA were re-examined by both RIA and EIA to confirm the initial result. Use of less than the recommended volume of serum for EIA produced results inconsistent with RIA in four of 27 sera examined. Quantitative correlation between RIA and EIA was low (r = 0.691). Positive controls used for EIA showed considerable variation from day to day, although intra-assay variation was much less. The sensitivity of the EIA method examined compares favourably with previously published EIA studies and with the RIA used in this study. Auszyme I EIA is a sensitive and specific third generation test for HBsAg that offers several advantages over currently used RIA techniques.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of enzyme immunoassay with radioimmunoassay for the detection of hepatitis B surface antigen

Hendry

Herzog

Herrman

et al. 1983

Journal of Medical Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Improved economics of HBsAg screening with commercial radioimmunoassay reagents.

Hopkins¹,

Ross²,

Jordan³

et al. 1980

J Clin Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Commercial 1251 anti-HBs was processed to yield a sixfold improvement in economy without significant loss of sensitivity or specificity. Additional polystyrene beads were coupled with commercially supplied anti-HBs. The modified assay (Mod-RlA) was compared with commercial RIA, EIA, and RPHA using established HBsAg panels. Mod-RIA was also compared with HEPATEST (RPHA) for screening 71 200 fresh blood donations during an 11 5-month period. Solid-phase sandwich radioimmunoassay (RIA), particularly that marketed by Abbott Laboratories under the name AUSRIA-IT, remains the most reliable screening test for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) despite the current strong challenge by enzyme immunoassay (EIA).1"2.34 Unfortunately, the price per test of commercial RIA has proved prohibitive for many transfusion centres restricted to the cheaper and less sensitive reverse passive haemagglutination test (RPHA).5 With some types of assay it is possible to reduce costs by using home-made rather than commercial reagents.6 Many transfusion centres have neither the expertise nor the facilities to produce reagents that require specific protein purification with subsequent radiolabelling. In these circumstances the most that can be achieved in economic terms is a reduction in costs accruing from bulk purchase of commercial reagent. This communication presents evidence that the 1251-labelled anti-HBs in the AUSRIA-I1 RIA kit may be quickly, simply, and routinely processed and diluted to provide sufficient reagent for an average of six times as many assays without significant loss of sensitivity or specificity and without necessitating an increase in incubation time. Material and methods REAGENTS AND EQUIPMENT 1 6'5 mm diameter polystyrene beads (white and tinted) are obtainable from the Precision Plastic Ball Company, 3000 North Cicero Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60641, USA. In the UK these

show abstract

Comparison of radioimmunoassay and enzyme immunoassay for detecting hepatitis B surface antigen in serum from freshly donated blood and selected blood products.

Cited by 2 publications

References 9 publications

Comparison of enzyme immunoassay with radioimmunoassay for the detection of hepatitis B surface antigen

Comparison of enzyme immunoassay with radioimmunoassay for the detection of hepatitis B surface antigen

Improved economics of HBsAg screening with commercial radioimmunoassay reagents.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About