Journal Browser Advanced Search Help
Journal Browser Advanced search HELP
Ann Lab Med. 2018 Sep;38(5):458-465. English. Original Article. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2018.38.5.458
Park Y , Park BG , Ha J , Kim HS .
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. kimhs54@yuhs.ac
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract

Background

Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) is one of the most prevalent causes of viral infection in humans. EBV infection stage (acute, past, or absent infection) is typically determined using a combination of assays that detect EBV-specific markers, such as IgG and IgM antibodies against the EBV viral capsid antigen (VCA) and IgG antibodies against the EBV nuclear antigen (EBNA). We compared the diagnostic performance and agreement of results between three commercial EBV antibody assays using an EBV performance panel (SeraCare Life Science, Milford, MA, USA) as a reference.

Methods

EBV antibody tests of EBV VCA IgM, VCA IgG, and EBNA IgG antibodies were performed by the Architect (Abbott Diagnostics, Wiesbaden, Germany), Liaison (DiaSorin, Saluggia, Italy), and Platelia (Bio-Rad, Marnes-la-Coquette, France) assays. Agreement between the three assays was evaluated using 279 clinical samples, and EBV DNA and antibody test results were compared.

Results

The three EBV antibody assays showed good diagnostic performance with good and excellent agreement with the performance panel (kappa coefficient, >0.6). The overall VCA IgM positivity rate was higher in EBV DNA-positive samples than in EBV DNA-negative samples for all three EBV antibody assays (P=0.02). The three EBV antibody assays exhibited good agreement in results for the clinical samples.

Conclusions

The diagnostic performance of the three EBV antibody assays was acceptable, and they showed comparable agreement in results for the clinical samples.

Copyright © 2019. Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors.