ABSTRACT
Herpes simplex virus (HSV) infections are one of the most common and stigmatized infections of humankind, affecting more than 4 billion people around the world and more than 100 million Americans. Yet most people do not know their infection status and antibody testing is not recommended, partly due to poor test performance. Here, we compared the test performance of the Roche Elecsys HSV-1 IgG and HSV-2 IgG, DiaSorin LIAISON HSV-1/2 IgG, and Bio-Rad BioPlex 2200 HSV-1 & HSV-2 IgG assays with the gold-standard HSV western blot in 1994 persons, including 1017 persons with PCR or culture-confirmed HSV-1 and/or HSV-2 infection. Across all samples, the Bio-Rad and Roche assays had similar performance metrics with low sensitivity (<85%), but high specificity (>97%) for detecting HSV-1 IgG and both high sensitivity (>97%) and high specificity (>98%) for detecting HSV-2 IgG. The DiaSorin assay had a higher sensitivity (92.1%) but much lower specificity (88.7%) for detecting HSV-1 IgG and comparatively poor sensitivity (94.5%) and specificity (94.2%) for detecting HSV-2 IgG. The DiaSorin assay performed poorly at low-positive index values with 60.9% of DiaSorin HSV-1 results and 20.8% of DiaSorin HSV-2 results with positive index values <3.0 yielding false positive results. Based on an estimated HSV-2 seroprevalence of 12% in the United States, positive predictive values for HSV-2 IgG were 96.1% for Roche, 87.4% for Bio-Rad, and 69.0% for DiaSorin, meaning nearly 1 of every 3 positive DiaSorin HSV-2 IgG results would be falsely positive. Further development in HSV antibody diagnostics is needed to provide appropriate patient care.
Competing Interest Statement
ALG reports contract testing from Abbott, Cepheid, Novavax, Pfizer, Janssen and Hologic, research support from Gilead, outside of the described work. CJ reports consulting fees from Assembly Biosciences and GSK and research funding from GSK and Moderna. No industry support was received for the above work, which was entirely paid for by departmental funds.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Institutional Review Board of the University of Washington gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in Supplemental Data.
