Comparative study on ELISA, CLIA and rapid diagnostic test in detecting HCV infection in blood donor at a tertiary care center

Background: The prevalence of blood screening assays for hepatitis C infection among blood donors remains comparatively low in line with WHO guidelines, especially when compared to developing nations. Various methodologies, such as ELISA, immunochromatography assays, RIBA, HCV RNA PCR, and CLIA, are...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of applied pharmaceutical research 2023-08, Vol.11 (3), p.48-53
Hauptverfasser: Preethi, M., Saisudha, M., Subhashini, P., P. R, Resmi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: The prevalence of blood screening assays for hepatitis C infection among blood donors remains comparatively low in line with WHO guidelines, especially when compared to developing nations. Various methodologies, such as ELISA, immunochromatography assays, RIBA, HCV RNA PCR, and CLIA, are employed to detect anti-HCV IgG antibodies in all patients with HCV infection. However, there is a significant scarcity of comparative data available regarding the evaluation of HCV infection screening among CLIA, ELISA, and RDT methods in their ability to detect anti-HCV antibodies effectively. This gap in knowledge highlights the need for further research and analysis in this critical area of healthcare. In this study we evaluate the technical performance between ELISA, CLIA and RDT in detection of HCV infection. Materials and method: A cross-sectional study was carried out, involving 70 blood donor samples. Subsequently, the samples were subjected to screening for Anti-HCV antibodies using three different methods: RDT, CLIA, and ELISA. The results obtained from these screenings were duly recorded. Results: Among the 70 patients included in the study, 63 (90%) were male, and 7 (10%) were female. The following performance metrics were calculated for each method where CLIA shows 100% sensitivity, Specificity 98%, PPV 100%, NPV 98.9%, Accuracy 100%, Kappa coefficient 0.932, p-value
ISSN:2348-0335
2348-0335
DOI:10.18231/j.joapr.2023.11.3.48.53