COVID-19 infection in high-risk populations is fatal and has a poor prognosis, necessitating a test to determine the protectiveness of immune response. Antibody testing is necessary to determine the body\'s immune response to COVID-19 infection and also vaccination strategies. Among the various methods available, the chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) test is more widely used and accessible to determine antibody levels. This study aimed to determine the protection level of S-RBD SARS-CoV-2 IgG using CLIA compared to the Surrogate Virus Neutralization Test (SVNT). The population of this study comprised all healthcare professionals who experienced S-RBD SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody level examinations. S-RBD SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels were examined using CLIA and SVNT. The cut-off was determined using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and area under the curve (AUC) measurements were evaluated. The result showed a strong positive correlation between S-RBD SARS-CoV-2 IgG CLIA and SVNT, with a value of r = 0.933 and p < 0.001. The value ≥ 37.29 BAU/mL was determined as the cut-off based on SVNT 30% inhibition level with sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 96.5%, 90.9%, 96.5%, and 90.9%, respectively. A titer of antibodies greater than or equal to 37.29 BAU/mL with CLIA showed the presence of protective antibodies compared to SVNT.

A new chemiluminescence immunoassay method (CLIA) for detecting IgA anti-transglutaminase (atTG IgA) in celiac disease (CD) has prompted inquiries into its diagnostic performance. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing CLIA with traditional enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA). We searched PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases up to March 2024. The diagnostic references were intestinal biopsy and ESPGHAN guidelines. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of atTG IgA assessed by CLIA and the odds ratio (OR) between the assays. Eleven articles were eligible for the systematic review and seven for the meta-analysis. Sensitivity and specificity of atTG IgA CLIA-assay were 0.98 (95% CI, 0.95-0.99) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.94-0.99), respectively. The sensitivity of atTG IgA antibody detection did not significantly vary across the three assay modalities examined (CLIA vs. ELISA OR: 1.08 (95% CI, 0.56-2.11; p = 0.8); CLIA vs. FEIA OR: 6.97 (95% CI, 0.60-81.03; p = 0.1). The specificity of atTG IgA assessed by FEIA was higher than for CLIA (OR 0.17 (95% CI, 0.05-0.62); p < 0.007). According to the systematic review, normalization of atTG IgA levels in CD patients following a gluten-free diet was delayed when using CLIA compared to ELISA and FEIA methods. Conflicting findings were reported on the antibody threshold to use in order to avoid biopsy confirmation.

UNASSIGNED: Hepatitis B virus is one of the leading underlying causes of chronic liver disease. Rapid diagnostic tests with improved sensitivity and specificity for detecting hepatitis B infection could aid in large-scale community screening in resource-limited settings. This study was designed to assess the clinical performance of a rapid card test to detect HBsAg.
UNASSIGNED: In this study, archived once-thawed serum samples were tested on the Determine HBsAg 2 card and their performance was evaluated in reference to a chemiluminescence-based assay (HBsAg qualitative assay, Abbott Diagnostics, US).
UNASSIGNED: A total of 120 patient samples (46 confirmed HBsAg-positive and 74 confirmed HBsAg-negative) were used in this study. The overall median age of the study population was 44 years (IQR: 36-51 years), with a male gender predominance (90%). A specificity of 100% (74/74) and sensitivity of 84.7% (39/46) was observed for the Determine HBsAg 2 assay compared with the reference assay. The samples that showed false-negative results (n = 7) by the card test had HBsAg levels below the limit-of-detection of the card assay.
UNASSIGNED: The Determine HBsAg 2 assay gives rapid results in 15 minutes with good sensitivity and specificity. This makes it a good, affordable tool for large-scale screening and public health surveillance programs.
UNASSIGNED: Accurate and cost-effective rapid card tests for early detection of Hepatitis B infection would enable quick isolation of infected cases, thus reducing transmission in the community.
UNASSIGNED: Samal J, Soni A, Pandey A, et al. Performance Evaluation of Determine HBsAg 2 Rapid Card Test for the Detection of Hepatitis B Surface Antigen in Clinical Samples. Euroasian J Hepato-Gastroenterol 2024;14(1):9-11.

Measuring biological drugs\' trough concentrations and the concentrations of anti-drug antibodies is a valuable practice for treatment optimization. ELISA techniques are the gold standard for biological drug concentration quantification, but new techniques such as chemiluminescence immunoassays present some advantages. The aim of this unicentric prospective observational study is to compare the infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab and ustekinumab trough levels and anti-adalimumab and anti-infliximab antibodies concentrations obtained when using a chemiluminescent instrument (i-TRACK®, Theradiag, Croissy-Beaubourg, France) and an ELISA instrument (TRITURUS®, Griffols, Barcelona, Spain). Linear regression, Pearson or Spearman tests, Bland-Altman plots and the Cohen kappa test were applied for every sample. The correlation was excellent for both assays in the measurement of all drug concentrations. In general, values were lower when measured using i-TRACK than when using TRITURUS, especially when the values were high. Both techniques proved valuable in clinical practice for monitoring adalimumab and infliximab drug concentration. However, the results were modest for ustekinumab and vedolizumab, so caution is recommended and further research is needed. The limited number of anti-drug antibody-positive samples precluded a comparison between the techniques.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis and treatment monitoring of hepatitis C is quite challenging. The screening test, i.e. antibody assay, is unable to detect acute cases, while the gold standard hepatitis C virus (HCV) reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RTPCR) assay is not feasible in resource-limited countries such as India due to high cost and infrastructure requirement. European Association for the Study of the Liver and World Health Organization have approved a new marker, i.e. HCV core antigen (HCVcAg) assay, as an alternative to molecular assay. In this study, we have evaluated HCVcAg assay for diagnosis and treatment monitoring follow-up in Indian population infected with hepatitis C.
METHODS: Blood specimen of 90 clinically suspected cases of acute hepatitis C were tested simultaneously for anti-HCV antibody assay via ELISA (enzyme-linked immunoassay), HCVcAg assay by chemiluminescence immune assay (CLIA) and HCV RTPCR VL (viral load) assay. Thirty-four HCV RTPCR positive patients were further enrolled in treatment monitoring group whose blood samples were tested at the beginning of treatment, two weeks, four weeks and 12 weeks via HCV core Ag assay and HCV RTPCR Viral Load assay.
RESULTS: Considering HCV RTPCR as gold standard, diagnostic performance of HCV core Ag assay and anti-HCV antibody assay was evaluated. The sensitivity and specificity of HCV core Ag assay were higher than that of anti-HCV Antibody assay, i.e. 88.3% and 100% vs. 23.3% and 83.3%, respectively. The overall diagnostic accuracy of HCV core Ag assay was 92.20%. Among treatment follow-up group, HCV core Ag levels correlated well with HCV viral load levels, at the beginning of treatment (baseline) till 12 weeks showing highly significant Spearman rank correlation coefficient of > 0.9 with HCV viral load levels.
CONCLUSIONS: HCV core Ag assay is a cost-effective, practically feasible substitute of HCV RTPCR viral load assay for diagnosis as well as long duration treatment monitoring of hepatitis C infection in resource-limited settings.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Biannual instrument-correlation studies are required for nonwaived assays performed on multiple instruments.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of using College of American Pathologists (CAP) Quality Cross Check-Chemistry and Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (CZQ) to assess instrument correlations among multiple analyzers, analyzer models, and Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) licenses for 55 unique analytes.
METHODS: Instrument correlation studies were performed on 9 Abbott ARCHITECT instruments (c4000 [n = 4], c8000 [n = 2], and c16000 [n = 3]) over 3 CLIA licenses using CZQ materials. The mean (SD) values, concentration difference, percent bias, and peer data for each individual level of CZQ were determined for each individual analyzer. Acceptable concentration and percentage for each analyte were set using criteria from CAP or other reputable sources such as the American Association of Bioanalysts or the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. Peer data were provided by CAP with the CZQ kit.
RESULTS: Correlations using CZQ materials showed that 94.5% of assays studied were within the acceptability criteria by percent bias only and 98.2% were within acceptability criteria by concentration difference.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of CZQ provides support to standardized correlation studies among instruments within and across separate CLIA licenses. However, widespread adoption of CZQ may be limited due to concerns regarding matrix effects, analyte ranges, and ease of data analysis.

In October 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a proposed rule that ends enforcement discretion for laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). The FDA\'s proposal outlines a five-stage implementation to begin regulating LDTs as they do for commercial in vitro diagnostics (IVDs), including modified FDA-approved/cleared tests. We outline here concerns from the clinical and public health microbiology laboratory perspective. It is our opinion that LDTs performed by individual Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified diagnostic laboratories should not be regulated in the same way as commercial IVDs. This rule, if finalized, will negatively impact the diagnostic services currently offered by clinical and public health laboratories and, therefore, patients and the providers who care for them. Ending enforcement discretion will likely stifle diagnostic innovation and decrease access to diagnostic testing and health equity. Furthermore, the lack of infrastructure, including personnel and funding, at the FDA and diagnostic laboratories to support the required submissions for review is an obstacle. Like the FDA, diagnostic laboratories prioritize patient safety, accurate clinical diagnostics, and health equity. Since the scope of the LDT landscape is currently unknown, we are supportive of a registration process, along with non-burdensome adverse event reporting, to first understand the scope of clinical use of LDTs and any associated safety concerns. Any regulatory rule should be based on data that have been gathered systematically, not anecdotes or case reports. A rule must also balance the potential negative impact to patient care with realistic safety risks for infectious disease diagnostics.

The presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was examined over 7 months in a population of essential service workers exposed during the first epidemic wave in Madrid (Spain). Results obtained with different serological assays were compared. Firstly, serum samples obtained in April 2020 were analyzed using eleven SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection methods, including seven ELISAs, two CLIAs and two LFAs. While all of the ELISA tests and the Roche eCLIA method showed good performance, it was poorer for the Abbott CLIA and LFA tests. Sera from 115 workers with serologically positive results in April were collected 2 and 7 months after the first sampling and were analyzed using five of the tests previously assessed. The results showed that while some ELISA tests consistently detected the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies even 7 months after first detection, other methods, such as the Abbott CLIA test, showed an important reduction in sensitivity for these mature antibodies. The sensitivity increased after establishing new cut-off values, calculated taking into account both recent and old infections, suggesting that an adjustment of assay parameters may improve the detection of individuals exposed to the infection.

Durvalumab (DUR) is a human monoclonal antibody used for the immunotherapy of lung cancer. It is a novel immune-checkpoint inhibitor, which blocks the programmed death 1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) proteins and works to promote the normal immune responses that attack the tumour cells. To support the pharmacokinetic (PK) studies, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and refining the safety profile of DUR, an efficient assay is required, preferably immunoassay. This study describes, for the first time, the development of a highly sensitive chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) for the quantitation of DUR in plasma samples with enhanced chemiluminescence detection system. The CLIA protocol was conducted in 96-microwell plates and involved the non-competitive binding reaction of DUR to its specific antigen (PD-L1 protein). The immune complex of DUR with PD-L1 formed onto the inner surface of the assay plate wells was quantified by a chemiluminescence (CL)-producing horseradish peroxidase (HRP) reaction. The reaction employed 4-(1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)phenol (TRP) as an efficient enhancer of the HRP-luminol-hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) CL reaction. The optimum protocol of the proposed CLIA was established, and its validation parameters were assessed as per the guidelines for the validation of immunoassays for bioanalysis. The working dynamic range of the assay was 10-800 pg mL-1 with a limit of detection (LOD) of 10.3 pg mL-1. The assay enables the accurate and precise quantitation of DUR in human plasma at a concentration as low as 30.8 pg mL-1. The CLIA protocol is simple and convenient; an analyst can analyse several hundreds of samples per working day. This high throughput property enables the processing of many samples in clinical settings. The proposed CLIA has a significant benefit in the quantitation of DUR in clinical settings for assessment of its PK, TDM and refining the safety profile.