Assessment of performance and comparison of three commercial HDV RNA detection assays: implications for diagnosis and treatment monitoring.

Objectives: Precise HDV-RNA detection and quantification are pivotal for diagnosis and monitoring of response to newly approved treatment. We evaluate the performance of three HDV RNA detection and quantification assays. Methods: Hepatitis Delta RT-PCR system kit, EurobioPlex HDV assay, and RoboGene HDV RNA Quantification kit 2.0 were used for testing 151 HBsAg-positive samples, 90 HDV-RNA negative and 61 HDV-RNA positive. We also evaluated serial dilutions of the WHO international standard for HDV, PEI 7657/12. All HDV-RNA positive samples were genotyped using a next-generation sequencing strategy. Results: Qualitative results indicated a 100% concordance between tests. Quantitative results correlated well, r2 = 0.703 (Vircell-vs-Eurobio), r2 = 0.833 (Vircell-vs-RoboGene), r2 = 0.835 (Robogene-vs-Eurobio). Bias index was 2.083 (Vircell-vs-Eurobio), -1.283 (Vircell-vs-RoboGene), and -3.36 (Robogene-vs-Eurobio). Using the WHO IS, Vircell overestimated the viral load by 0.98 log IU/mL, Eurobio by 1.46 log IU/mL, and RoboGene underestimated it by 0.98 log IU/mL. Fifty-nine samples were successfully genotyped (Genotype 1, n=52; Genotype 5, n=7; Genotype 6, n=1), with similar results for correlation and bias. Conclusion: This study underscores the necessity of using reliable HDV-RNA detection and quantification assays, as evidenced by the high concordance rates in qualitative detection and the observed variability in quantitative results. These findings highlight the importance of consistent assay use in clinical practice to ensure accurate diagnosis and effective treatment monitoring of HDV infection.

Limited Value of Single Sampling for IgM Antibody Determination as a Diagnostic Approach for Acute Hepatitis E Virus Infection.

The objective was to evaluate the accuracy of a single determination of IgM antibodies for hepatitis E virus (HEV) diagnosis in patients with acute hepatitis. A prospective study included patients with suspicion of HEV infection, defined as individuals with acute hepatitis showing negative results for serological and molecular markers of other hepatitis viruses. All patients were evaluated for hepatitis E virus infection, including both IgM antibodies and viral RNA determinations. Hepatitis E virus infection was defined as positivity for any of these markers. A total of 182 patients were included in the study, of whom 68 (37.4%) were diagnosed with HEV infection. Of these, 29 (42.6%) were positive for both IgM and HEV RNA, 25 (36.8%) were positive only for IgM antibodies, and 14 (20.6%) were positive only for HEV RNA. Considering only those individuals who were positive for IgM antibodies, 54 of the 68 total cases (79.4%) could be identified, showing a percentage of false-negative individuals of 20.6%. The diagnostic algorithm of hepatitis E virus infection in patients with acute hepatitis should include the determination of both IgM antibodies and HEV RNA because single sampling for IgM antibody determination led to an important proportion of misdiagnosed cases. IMPORTANCE In immunocompetent patients with a suspicion of hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection, single IgM antibody testing is typically applied. In this prospective study, we aimed to evaluate the accuracy of three different HEV screening approaches in patients with acute hepatitis, including approaches based on IgM determination, HEV RNA detection, and the combination of both. Our study shows that any diagnostic algorithm for HEV infection in patients with acute hepatitis should be based on the determination of both markers (IgM antibodies and HEV RNA) because single sampling for IgM antibodies results in an unacceptable number of false-negative results (20%). According to our results, the determination of HEV RNA should not be limited to immunosuppressed individuals because a high proportion of cases could be misdiagnosed.