Journal List > Korean J Lab Med > v.26(6) > 1011356

TOOLS
Yoo, Oh, and Shin: Comparison of Three Assay Systems for Qualitative and Quantitative Results of Hepatitis B Surface Antibody
Original Article

Korean J Leg Med 2006;26(6):431-435.

Published online: 10 February 2006

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3343/kjlm.2006.26.6.431

Comparison of Three Assay Systems for Qualitative and Quantitative Results of Hepatitis B Surface Antibody

Soo Jin Yoo, M.D., Hye-Jeon Oh, M.T., Bo-Moon Shin, M.D.

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Received 14 July 2006       Revised 18 August 2006       Accepted 2 September 2006

Copyright © 2006 The Korean Society for Legal Medicine

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

With a technical improvement of the assay system, automated immunoassay analyzers for hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) are widely used. However, some discrepancies between assays are still being reported. We compared the qualitative and quantitative results of three kinds of anti-HBs assays.

Methods

Serum samples were collected from 517 patients and anti-HBs were determined using AxSYM AUSAB, Bayer ADVIA Centaur, and Roche Elecsys assay systems.

Results

The concordance rates between the three assays were 95.1% (543/571). The concordance rates were 97.7% between Centaur and Elecsys, 96.3% between AxSYM and Centaur, and 95.6% between AxSYM and Elecsys. Their correlation coefficients for quantitative results were 0.97, 0.94, and 0.93 in the same order. Twenty-eight specimens showed discrepant results, and all of them had antibody values below 31.5 mIU/mL.

Conclusions

Three immunoassays for anti-HBs presented a high concordance and correlation; however, the results should be interpreted with caution, because there were still significant differences between assay methods, especially for a low-level of anti-HBs.

Keywords: Hepatitis B virus, Anti-HBs, Automated immunoassay

References

1. Cha YJ, Kwon SY, Kum DG, Kim SW, Kim TY, Kim JR, et al. Annual report on external quality assessment in immunoserology in Korea (2003). J Lab Med Qual Assur. 2004; 26:47–69.
2. Davidson M, Krugman S. Recombinant yeast hepatitis B vaccine compared with plasma-derived vaccine: immunogenicity and effect of a booster dose. J Infect. 1986; 13:S31–8.
crossref
3. Player VA, White D. Comparison of an ELISA system for the quantification of hepatitis B antibody with an automated and a semiautomated system. J Virol Methods. 1993; 45:67–72.
crossref
4. Whang DH, Shin BM. Comparison of four-assay system for the quantification of hepatitis B surface antibody. Korean J Lab Med. 2002; 22:424–30.
5. Heijtink RA, Schneeberger PM, Postma B, Crombach W. Anti-HBs levels after hepatitis B immunisation depend on test reagents: routinely determined 10 and 100 IU/l seroprotection levels unreliable. Vaccine. 2002; 20:2899–905.
crossref
6. McCartney RA, Harbour J, Roome AP, Caul EO. Comparison of enhanced chemiluminescence and microparticle enzyme immunoassay for the measurement of hepatitis B surface antibody. Vaccine. 1993; 11:941–5.
crossref
7. Whang DH, Um TH. Comparison of immunochromatography assays and quantitative immunoassays for detecting HBsAg and anti-HBs. Korean J Lab Med. 2005; 25:186–91.
8. Oh JH, Kim TY, Yoon HJ, Min HS, Lee HR, Choi TY. Evaluation of Genedia HBsAg Rapid Genedia Anti-HBs Rapid for the screening of HBsAg and Anti-HBs. Korean J Clin Pathol. 1999; 19:114–7.
9. Taylor P, Pickard G, Gammie A, Atkins M. Comparison of the AD-VIA Centaur and Abbott AxSYM immunoassay systems for a routine diagnostic virology laboratory. J Clin Virol. 2004; 30:S11–5.
crossref
10. Ostrow DH, Edwards B, Kimes D, Macioszek J, Irace H, Nelson L, et al. Quantitation of hepatitis B surface antibody by an automated microparticle enzyme immunoassay. J Virol Methods. 1991; 32:265–76.
crossref
11. Doche C, Thome M, Dimet I, Bienvenu J. Evaluation of the fully automated Cobas Core enzyme immunoassay for the quantitation of antibodies against hepatitis B virus surface antigen. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem. 1996; 34:365–8.
12. Chen Y, Wu W, Li LJ, Lou B, Zhang J, Fan J. Comparison of the results for three automated immunoassay systems in determining serum HBV markers. Clin Chim Acta. 2006; 372:129–33.
crossref

Fig. 1.
Regression graphs for anti-HBs (mIU/mL) excluding the results above 1,000 mIU/mL. (A) Elecsys vs Centaur, (B) AxSYM vs Elecsys, (C) AxSYM vs Centaur.
kjlm-26-431f1.tif
Table 1.
Comparison of the results between the three anti-HBs assay kits (n=571)
Results
 No. of specimens (%)
Elecsys Centaur AxSYM
P P P 427 (74.8%)
P P N 10 (1.8%)
N P P 6 (1.1%)
P N P 1 (0.2%)
N N P 5 (0.9%)
P N N 4 (0.7%)
N P N 2 (0.4%)
N N N 116 (20.3%)

Abbreviations: P, positive; N, negative.

Table 2.
Specimens showing discrepant results between the three assay kit (mIU/mL)
Specimen Elecsys Centaur AxSYM
1 10.6 18.2 N (9.3)
2 12.9 14.0 N (6.4)
3 15.0 10.6 N (9.0)
4 17.6 31.5 N (9.2)
5 29.0 18.8 N (5.8)
6 17.1 10.7 N (4.9)
7 23.4 14.5 N (4.3)
8 28.9 15.2 N (5.9)
9 27.8 28.7 N (7.3)
10 22.4 19.4 N (3.0)
11 N (2.9) 19.1 14.4
12 N (9.8) 13.1 12.0
13 N (9.0) 16.1 12.7
14 N (5.3) 12.6 16.2
15 N (6.8) 17.6 28.5
16 N (6.6) 13.2 14.8
17 23.5 N (5.5) 17.9
18 N (5.5) N (4.6) 23.1
19 N (5.3) N (7.7) 20.0
20 N (6.7) N (6.6) 12.3
21 N (5.3) N (2.5) 11.1
22 N (5.4) N (7.3) 19.3
23 20.1 N (9.0) N (5.3)
24 18.6 N (7.3) N (6.9)
25 16.6 N (4.4) N (7.3)
26 16.4 N (9.9) N (8.0)
27 N (7.1) 10.3 N (4.4)
28 N (5.6) 10.5 N (2.0)

Abbreviations: P, positive; N, negative.

TOOLS
Similar articles