BACKGROUND: An improved test version of the Abbott ARCHITECT anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) test became available at the end of 2005. STUDY DESIGN: We compared the new test version with the Ortho Vitros anti-HCV test by evaluating 2034 serum samples in parallel on both systems under routine laboratory conditions. Discordant samples were tested in the Inno-LIA HCV Score assay as well as in the RIBA HCV 3.0. RESULTS: Of the 2034 samples 140 (6.9%) yielded positive and 1856 (91.2%) negative results in both assays. We observed discordant results in 38 samples (1.9%). All discrepant samples showed a low S/CO ratio of 1.0-6.9 (mean 2.8) in the Ortho assay and of 1.3-3.0 (mean 1.96) in the ARCHITECT assay. As expected, most of them could not be confirmed by immunoblot testing. Comparison of the results of the two immunoblots (Inno-LIA and RIBA) revealed a great variability in test results. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first comparative evaluation of the modified version of the Abbott ARCHITECT anti-HCV assay in comparison with the Ortho Vitros anti-HCV test. Under routine laboratory testing, we observed good overall concordance between the two assays and no evidence that one assay shows more false-reactive or negative results than the other.
BACKGROUND: An improved test version of the Abbott ARCHITECT anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) test became available at the end of 2005. STUDY DESIGN: We compared the new test version with the Ortho Vitros anti-HCV test by evaluating 2034 serum samples in parallel on both systems under routine laboratory conditions. Discordant samples were tested in the Inno-LIA HCV Score assay as well as in the RIBA HCV 3.0. RESULTS: Of the 2034 samples 140 (6.9%) yielded positive and 1856 (91.2%) negative results in both assays. We observed discordant results in 38 samples (1.9%). All discrepant samples showed a low S/CO ratio of 1.0-6.9 (mean 2.8) in the Ortho assay and of 1.3-3.0 (mean 1.96) in the ARCHITECT assay. As expected, most of them could not be confirmed by immunoblot testing. Comparison of the results of the two immunoblots (Inno-LIA and RIBA) revealed a great variability in test results. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first comparative evaluation of the modified version of the Abbott ARCHITECT anti-HCV assay in comparison with the Ortho Vitros anti-HCV test. Under routine laboratory testing, we observed good overall concordance between the two assays and no evidence that one assay shows more false-reactive or negative results than the other.
Authors: Elissa M Schechter-Perkins; Nancy S Miller; Jon Hall; Joshua J Hartman; David H Dorfman; Chris Andry; Benjamin P Linas Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Seung Gyu Yun; Jin Woo Jang; Jong Han Lee; Chae Seung Lim; Jinhong Kim; Yeona Ki; Minjoung Jo; Soyoun Kim Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 3.411