Comparison of two immunoassays for quantification of hepatitis B surface antigen in Chinese patients with concomitant hepatitis B surface antigen and hepatitis B surface antibodies

Accuracy Validation of the Elecsys HBsAg II Quant Assay and Its Utility in Resolving Equivocal Qualitative HBsAg Results

Background and Objectives: There are reports of false qualitative HBsAg results, because of various causes, such as samples with low HBsAg concentrations that may produce false positives. The main aims of this study were to validate the analytical accuracy and to assess the utility of the Elecsys assay compared to that of the qualitative HbsAg assay as a screening test in resolving equivocal qualitative HbsAg results. Materials and Methods: The limit of blank (LoB), the limit of detection (LoD), the limit of quantification (LoQ), and linearity were estimated to validate the analytical accuracy of the Elecsys HBsAg II Quant assay. A total of 449 serum samples showing initial equivocal results (1–50 index) were evaluated by Elecsys HBsAg II Quant and ADVIA Centaur HBsAg II assays. Results: The LoQ of the assay was determined to be 0.050 IU/mL, as provided by the manufacturer. The Kappa agreement between the two assays was almost perfect, at 0.9669, despite seven discordant results. With a specificity of 100% at new cut-off index value ≥5.42, about 78 samples (17%, 78/449) with index value ≥5.42 were interpreted as positives without further duplicate tests, however the remaining 371 samples with index value <5.42 need to be confirmed with additional HBV marker assays. Conclusions: We confirm that the Elecsys HBsAg II Quant assay is accurate and sensitive for HBV infection and recommend it as an alternative confirmatory HBsAg assay for resolving equivocal qualitative HBsAg results.

Analytical Performance of the Sysmex HISCL HBsAg Assay and Comparison with the Roche Elecsys HBsAg II Quant Assay in the Quantification of Hepatitis B Surface Antigen

Background and Objectives: This study aims to estimate the analytical performance of the Sysmex HISCL HBsAg assay and to assess the analytical correlation with the Roche Elecsys HBsAg II quant assay with clinical samples and the WHO International Standard (IS). Materials and Methods: The intra-assay precision, linearity, assay limitation, accuracy, and comparative evaluation of the HISCL HBsAg assay were estimated. Results: Extrapolating from the plot of the average total allowable error versus the reference value, an accuracy goal of 20% would be achieved around a limit of quantification (LoQ) of 0.014867 IU/mL. The percentage of biases for each level of the WHO IS measured by the two assays were less than 15%, except for the WHO 3rd IS, for which the HISCL HBsAg assay achieved a percentage of bias of 33%. In the comparative evaluation, Passing–Bablok regression analysis did not reveal any significant deviation from linearity between the two assays (y = −48.6998 + 1.9206x; p = 0.79 by the CUSUM test for linearity). The mean difference of the quantitative HBsAg level between the two assays was 1762.5 IU/mL in the Bland–Altman plot. Conclusions: The HISCL HBsAg assay, with a highly sensitive LoQ of 0.03 IU/mL, showed similar analytical performance in HBsAg quantification to the Elecsys HBsAg II quant assay and may be helpful in obtaining better diagnoses and therapeutic strategies for treating HBV infections.