Evaluation of three commercially available hepatitis C virus antibody detection assays under the conditions of a clinical virology laboratory

Validation of a strategy for HCV antibody testing with two enzyme immunoassays in a routine clinical laboratory

“…Both assays were shown to have good sensitivities and specificities (Zachary et al, 2004). In a direct comparison of three commercially available EIAs including AxSYM and Monolisa Plus, Monolisa Plus was the most specific, although the differences were not significant (Zachary et al, 2005).…”

“…The UK HPA algorithm (National Standard Method VSOP5i5, 2005) specifies that the second or confirmation assay should, when possible, be from a different format and/or employ different HCV antigens from the first assay and have ideally improved specificity. Using a confirmation assay with different antigens will reduce the risk that both tests detect the same false reactivities (Zachary et al, 2005). AxSYM and Monolisa Plus use recombinant antigens from different manufacturers.…”

Evaluation of a rapid, point-of-care test device for the diagnosis of hepatitis C infection

“…18 Overall specificity across all specimen types was comparable to that reported for currently approved laboratory EIAs. 19 Detection of anti-HCV seroconversion in response to infection also compared favorably to performance of currently approved EIAs. 20 These findings are consistent with a previous report indicating that the performance of this test device was significantly improved over the current state of the art for rapid HCV tests and comparable to EIA.…”

Cost-effective analysis of different algorithms for the diagnosis of hepatitis C virus infection

“…In this case, IB may be indeterminate but ELISA could be positive due to the reaction with better-preserved antigens such as core (22). 4) Other factors related to the kit performance (23) or to patient immunoresponse variability (24) may be involved.…”