ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2025
Comparison of Antibody Confirmation Assays for Hepatitis C Virus Testing in Patients With HIV.
Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organisation recommends testing populations most affected by hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, like people living with HIV. After screening with an Ab test, HCV RNA testing is required to identify active (viremic) infections. One could focus the HCV RNA testing capacity on true positive serological test results, by implementing serological HCV confirmation assays. Our goal was to evaluate the performance of 3 HCV confirmation assays in people living with HIV.
methodsA total of 415 frozen plasma specimens collected in Cambodia (Sihanouk Hospital Center of HOPE) and Belgium (Institute of Tropical Medicine) were tested with Geenius HCV supplemental Assay (Bio-Rad, Marne la Coquette, France), HCV Blot 3.0 (MP Biomedical, Irvine, CA), and INNO-LIA HCV Score (Fujirebio, Ghent, Belgium). Results were compared against HCV RNA results and/or a composite reference standard.
resultsOverall, INNO-LIA had the highest sensitivity (97.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 94.0%-98.5%) and Geenius the highest specificity (98.2%; 95% CI, 93.7%-99.5%). In a subset of patients with active infection (n = 177), all 3 assays showed comparable sensitivity (99.0%; 95% CI, 96.0%-100.0%). Both for INNO-LIA (8.7% [36 of 415]) and HCV Blot (7.0% [29 of 415]), the indeterminate results were mostly negative and/or indeterminate (80.6% [29 of 36] and 93.1% [27 of 29], respectively) on the composite reference standard compared with only 26.3% (10 of 38) on Geenius.
conclusionsAll 3 antibody confirmation assays show comparable and high sensitivity in active HCV infections. Geenius potentially offers some advantages in ease of use, low turnaround time, and ruling out past infections. The added value of HCV antibody confirmation assays needs to be established in larger cost-effectiveness studies and is influenced by decreasing HCV prevalence and HCV RNA capacity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.