Muñoz-Chimeno, MilagrosDíaz-Sánchez, NazaretMorago, LuciaRodriguez-Paredes, VanessaBarturen, SilviaRodriguez-Recio, AlvaroGarcia-Lugo, Maira AlejandraZamora, Maria IsabelMateo, MaríaSanchez-Martinez, MonicaAvellón, Ana2025-01-292025-01-292024-09-11Muñoz-Chimeno M, Díaz-Sánchez N, Morago L, Rodríguez-Paredes V, Barturen S, Rodríguez-Recio Á, García-Lugo MA, Zamora MI, Mateo M, Sánchez-Martínez M, Avellón A. Performance Comparison of Four Hepatitis E Antibodies Detection Methods. Microorganisms. 2024 Sep 11;12(9):1875.https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12105/26188HEV antibody detection constitutes the main screening test for HEV infection. The aim of this study is to compare the sensitivity and specificity of four techniques: LIAISON® MUREX DiaSorin anti-HEV IgG and anti-HEV IgM assays, Hepatitis E VIRCLIA® IgM and IgG monotests, WANTAI HEV-IgM and IgG ELISA and VIDAS® anti-HEV IgM and IgG tests in five panels of samples configurated according to the immunoblot (RecomLine, Mikrogen, Neuss, Germany). Anti-HEV IgM sensitivity in the acute phase was 100% in all techniques, while sensitivity, including the immediate convalescence phase, was 96.74% for LIAISON®, 83.14% for VIRCLIA®, 84.78% for WANTAI and 88.04% for VIDAS®. Anti-HEV IgM specificity was 100% for both LIAISON® and VIRCLIA®. Anti-HEV IgM WANTAI agreed with VIRCLIA® with a good Kappa coefficient (κ = 0.71). Anti-HEV IgG post-infection sensitivity was 100% for LIAISON®, VIDAS® and VIRCLIA® and 99% for WANTAI. Anti-HEV IgG specificity reached 97.17% for LIAISON and 88.68% for VIRCLIA®. Our results demonstrated a better capacity of LIAISON® MUREX anti-HEV IgM than that of competitors for detecting acute infections as well as accurate anti-HEV IgG results and in how to resolve them.engVoRhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/HEVIgGIgManti-HEVAntibodyChemiluminescenceHepatitis E virusAttribution 4.0 International39338549129187510.3390/microorganisms120918752076-2607Microorganismsopen access