Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 13, 2026
Dried Blood Spots - Preparing and Processing for Use in Immunoassays and in Molecular Techniques
Published on: March 13, 2015
[Comparison of nine different qualitative HBsAg assay kits]
Jinyoung Yang1, Jong Hyun Kim, Yeongsic Kim
1Department of Laboratory Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
Background:
Qualitative hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) assay kits are still commonly used in Korea where hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is endemic. The accurate determination of HBsAg plays a crucial role in the diagnosis and prevention of HBV infection, especially in endemic areas. The aim of this study was to compare the detection sensitivities of 9 qualitative HBsAg assay kits.
Methods:
Seven pooled sera with HBsAg concentration ranging from 0.14 IU/mL to 29.96 IU/mL were prepared. The HBsAg concentration of each pooled serum was determined by a quantitative HBsAg assay, Architect HBsAg (Abbott Laboratories, Ireland). The fully automated immunoassay kits included Elecsys HBsAg (Roche Diagnostics, Germany) and Immulite 2000 HBsAg (DPC, USA) and the rapid tests included 5 immunochromatographic assay (ICA) kits and 2 reverse passive hemagglutination assay (RPHA) kits.
Results:
Elecsys HBsAg (Roche Diagnostics) showed positive result in pooled serum with HBsAg concentration of 0.14 IU/mL, but Immulite 2000 HBsAg (DPC) showed negative result in the same concentration. Although ICA kits showed variable results among different assay kits, all of them showed negative results in pooled sera with HBsAg concentration of < or = 1.89 IU/mL. Two RPHA kits showed negative results in pooled sera with HBsAg concentration of < or = 7.98 IU/mL.
Conclusions:
Although ICAs were more sensitive than RPHAs, they had variable sensitivities for HBsAg and were less sensitive than the automated immunoassay kits. Therefore, ICAs and RPHAs should be used with caution in the screening tests for HBsAg and their sensitivities need to be improved.
