BACKGROUND & AIMS: Anti-HCV assays are prone to false positive results. Thus, accurate detection of HCV infection is critical for the timely therapeutic management. This study ascertained the reliability of Architect anti-HCV assay (Abbott) and to estimate the agreement of this assay with Ortho HCV 3.0 ELISA Test System with Enhanced SAVe (Ortho), HCV Tri-dot (Tri-dot) and HCV-PCR in a tertiary care setting. METHODS: A total of 78 788 consecutive sera were routinely screened for anti-HCV antibodies using Architect. All repeatedly reactive anti-HCV sera (n=1000) and anti-HCV negative sera (n=300) were tested in Ortho and in Tri-dot assays. Representative proportions of sera (n=500) with various signal-to-cut-off (S/Co) ratio were also compared with HCV-PCR. RESULTS: When Architect was compared with Ortho, Tri-dot, and HCV-PCR, the level of agreement as assessed by kappa were .26, .16, and .27 respectively. Using Latent class analysis (LCA), we found that sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 36.1% for Architect, 93.8% and 100% for Ortho and 63.8% and 100% for Tri-dot respectively. The median S/CO ratio of Architect and Ortho anti-HCV assays were significantly different between HCV-PCR positive and negative results (P<.0001). Furthermore, Architect S/CO ratio of >8 showed higher accuracy indices in both anti-HCV assays. CONCLUSIONS: Architect can be used as a screening assay because of its high sensitivity, high throughput, and short turnaround time. However, S/Co ratios of ≥1 to <8 in Architect necessitates HCV PCR to identify current infection and or EIA to distinguish true positivity from false biological positivity.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Anti-HCV assays are prone to false positive results. Thus, accurate detection of HCV infection is critical for the timely therapeutic management. This study ascertained the reliability of Architect anti-HCV assay (Abbott) and to estimate the agreement of this assay with Ortho HCV 3.0 ELISA Test System with Enhanced SAVe (Ortho), HCV Tri-dot (Tri-dot) and HCV-PCR in a tertiary care setting. METHODS: A total of 78 788 consecutive sera were routinely screened for anti-HCV antibodies using Architect. All repeatedly reactive anti-HCV sera (n=1000) and anti-HCV negative sera (n=300) were tested in Ortho and in Tri-dot assays. Representative proportions of sera (n=500) with various signal-to-cut-off (S/Co) ratio were also compared with HCV-PCR. RESULTS: When Architect was compared with Ortho, Tri-dot, and HCV-PCR, the level of agreement as assessed by kappa were .26, .16, and .27 respectively. Using Latent class analysis (LCA), we found that sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 36.1% for Architect, 93.8% and 100% for Ortho and 63.8% and 100% for Tri-dot respectively. The median S/CO ratio of Architect and Ortho anti-HCV assays were significantly different between HCV-PCR positive and negative results (P<.0001). Furthermore, Architect S/CO ratio of >8 showed higher accuracy indices in both anti-HCV assays. CONCLUSIONS: Architect can be used as a screening assay because of its high sensitivity, high throughput, and short turnaround time. However, S/Co ratios of ≥1 to <8 in Architect necessitates HCV PCR to identify current infection and or EIA to distinguish true positivity from false biological positivity.