Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objectives This study evaluated the clinical and analytical performances of the Access anti-HCV assay on the DxI 9000 Access Immunoassay Analyzer (hereafter DxI 9000). Materials and methods Diagnostic specificity and sensitivity of the Access anti-HCV assay were evaluated by comparing Access assay results to final anti-HCV sample status determined using a CE marked anti-HCV comparator assay and confirmatory immunoblot for positive and discrepant results. Performance of potential cross-reacting samples, sensitivity on seroconversion panels, and imprecision were also evaluated. Results Diagnostic specificity was 99.74% (95% CI 99.58 – 99.84%) on 5852 anti-HCV negative blood donor samples and 99.00% (98.35 – 99.39%) on 1497 anti-HCV negative hospitalized patient samples. Diagnostic sensitivity was 99.81% (98.90 – 99.97%) on 513 immunoblot-confirmed anti-HCV positive samples and 100.00% (98.92 – 100.00%) on an HCV genotyped subset of 353 samples. Cross reacting samples had specificity of 100.0% (99.02 – 100.00%) on 390 anti-HCV negative samples and sensitivity of 100.0% (97.50 – 100.00%) on 150 anti-HCV positive coinfection samples. Sensitivity on seroconversion panels showed mean first day of detection less than one day difference between Access anti-HCV and a comparator assay. Maximum patient sample reproducibility had a coefficient of variance (CV) of 10.1% on positive samples and 0.055 S/CO standard deviation (SD) on negative samples. Conclusions Access anti-HCV demonstrated excellent clinical and analytical performance comparable to other current CE-marked anti-HCV assays and provides a valuable addition to the DxI 9000 serological menu.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Visseaux et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: