Annals of laboratory medicine · 2013
Performance evaluation of the OraQuick hepatitis C virus rapid antibody test.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cha Young Joo, Park Quehn, Kang Eun-Suk, Yoo Byung Chul, Park Kyoung Un, Kim Jin-Wook, Hwang Yoo-Sung, Kim Myung Hee
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A reliable rapid assay for hepatitis C virus (HCV) may be helpful in various clinical settings. We evaluated the performance of the OraQuick HCV Rapid Antibody Test (OraSure Technologies Inc., Bethlehem, PA, USA).
METHODS: Clinical sensitivity and specificity were evaluated with oral fluids and sera from 137 patients diagnosed with hepatitis C and 300 healthy blood donors in a multi-center collaborative study. The stored sera of 200 proven HCV-infected patients and 200 healthy subjects were also evaluated. Analytical sensitivity was estimated with 4 commercial seroconversion panels and 7 Korean reference panels. The performance of 4 laboratory-based tests (3 chemiluminescence assays and 1 enzyme immunoassay) and 4 rapid test kits was compared. We also assessed the interference due to bilirubin, hemoglobin, lipid, rheumatoid factor, multipara, and several viral infections.
RESULTS: The clinical sensitivity and specificity of the OraQuick HCV test using oral fluid were 97.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.2-99.4%) and 100% (95% CI, 98.4-100%), respectively. The clinical sensitivity using serum samples was 100%. Using the 4 seroconversion panels, the OraQuick HCV test showed results comparable to those of the laboratory-based assays; its analytical sensitivity was higher than that of the other rapid test kits. There was no cross-reactivity with common interfering factors.
CONCLUSIONS: The clinical performance of the OraQuick HCV Test is comparable to that of laboratory-based tests with both serum and oral fluid. This supports the supplementary use of rapid HCV testing using oral fluid in various medical and non-medical settings.
METHODS: Clinical sensitivity and specificity were evaluated with oral fluids and sera from 137 patients diagnosed with hepatitis C and 300 healthy blood donors in a multi-center collaborative study. The stored sera of 200 proven HCV-infected patients and 200 healthy subjects were also evaluated. Analytical sensitivity was estimated with 4 commercial seroconversion panels and 7 Korean reference panels. The performance of 4 laboratory-based tests (3 chemiluminescence assays and 1 enzyme immunoassay) and 4 rapid test kits was compared. We also assessed the interference due to bilirubin, hemoglobin, lipid, rheumatoid factor, multipara, and several viral infections.
RESULTS: The clinical sensitivity and specificity of the OraQuick HCV test using oral fluid were 97.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.2-99.4%) and 100% (95% CI, 98.4-100%), respectively. The clinical sensitivity using serum samples was 100%. Using the 4 seroconversion panels, the OraQuick HCV test showed results comparable to those of the laboratory-based assays; its analytical sensitivity was higher than that of the other rapid test kits. There was no cross-reactivity with common interfering factors.
CONCLUSIONS: The clinical performance of the OraQuick HCV Test is comparable to that of laboratory-based tests with both serum and oral fluid. This supports the supplementary use of rapid HCV testing using oral fluid in various medical and non-medical settings.