PX-6 Comparative evaluation of indirect immunofluorescence assay and ELISA methods for the diagnosis of Epstein-Barr virus infection

Abstract

A commercial line blot using recombinant antigens was compared with a commercial ELISA and ‘in-house’ IFA (reference test). Two panels were evaluated: Panel A was selected to distinguish between primary infections (89), past infections (20) and seronegatives (8) in immunocompetent individuals. In panel B, patients with a high number of reactivations were included: immunosuppressed patients (37), lymphoma (19), nasopharyngeal carcinoma (10), chronic fatigue syndrome (14). Blood donors (43) and cross-reactive sera (29) were added as controls. Line blot and IFA were concordant in 94% of primary infections, 100% of seronegatives and 100% of past infections, similar to ELISA. Results differed significantly with regard to reactivations. When compared with IFA, the incidence of reactivations was overestimated by the blot, 24 and 58% in blood donors and cross-reactive sera, respectively. ELISA showed a similar problems with 21 and 34% indeterminate results, respectively. The line blot is easy to carry out, has a good concordance with the reference IFA for primary infections, and is, therefore, a sufficient choice for distinguishing primary infection from seronegative and past infection. EBV reactivation assessment will require other methods such as EBV viral load.