[Evaluation of two commercial enzyme immunoassays for diagnosis of hepatitis C in the conditions of a virology laboratory]. / Evaluation de deux trousses commerciales EIA pour le diagnostic de l'hépatite C dans les conditions d'un laboratoire de virologie.

BACKGROUND: Most studies which evaluate antibody detection assays are conducted on blood donors specimens, i.e healthy individuals. Sera collected in patients, vs healthy individuals, can make serological tests difficult because of possible non specific reactions interfering with serological tests. The aim of this work was to compare the specificity and the sensitivity of two commercial automated assays for the detection of hepatitis C virus antibody, Monolisa anti-HCV Plus on the Evolis automate (Biorad) and Axsym anti-HCV 3.0 (Abbott). PATIENTS AND METHOD: The prospective study of specificity included 2020 routine serum samples sent to our virology laboratory. The sensitivity was established with eight commercially available HCV seroconversion panels. RESULTS: The Monolisa and the Axsym assays showed a specificity of 99.64 and 99.12%, respectively. Of 49 specimens from eight commercially available HCV seroconversion panels, the number of positive results was 21 and 24 for the two tests, respectively. CONCLUSION: A statistical analysis of specificity and sensitivity results proved no significant difference between the two tests. Nevertheless, the Monolisa kits could be preferred for its more homogeneous sensitivity than the Axsym test and for its apparent better specificity. The final choice of a kit should also take into account the easiness to perform and an optimal integration in the usual practice of the concerned laboratory.

[Immunoblot in the serological diagnosis of hepatitis C virus infection]. / Intérêt de l'immunoblot dans l'évaluation du statut sérologique vis-à-vis de l'hépatite C.

The objective of the study was to assess three immunoblot assays, the Deciscan HCV Plus, the Riba and the Inno-Lia, on 44 discordant samples with three EIA kits. These immunoblots were considered as confirmation reagents. A result was considered as a false positive by anti-HCV antibody assay if the three immunoblots were negative or if two immunoblots were negative with the third being indeterminate and a negative virological genomic diagnosis observed on all the samples. The result was positive if at least two immunoblots out of three were positive. Thus, 34 samples were considered as false positive and ten samples were excluded because it was impossible to conclude between true or false positive result. The 44 discordant results were never confirmed as positive by the use immunoblot or PCR. The three immunoblots were negative for half of the samples and two immunoblots and one indeterminate were observed for 77% of the samples. The false positive results by the Monolisa assay were more often found indeterminate with the Deciscan assay than with the other immunoblots. That was also checked for Vitros/Riba pair. One of the explanations could be the use of common antigens for the reagents from the same manufacturer. The Inno-Lia test is the most specific immunoblot according to the results obtained in our study.