Independent evaluations that deploy clinical patient samples are important in assessing the performance of commercial tests used for serological screening of viral hepatitis and HIV in clinical laboratories.

We compared the analytical performance of Abbott Architect i2000SR, Abbott Alinity i, DiaSorin Liaison XL, and Siemens Atellica for the following analytes: anti-HAV IgG/anti-HAV total, anti-HAV IgM, HBsAg, anti‐HBc IgM, Anti‐HBc, HBeAg, anti‐HBe, anti‐HBs, anti-HCV, and HIV Ag/Ab. In addition, anti‐HBc IgM, HBeAg, and anti‐HBe were evaluated for Abbott Architect, Abbott Alinity and DiaSorin Liaison.

Pseudonymized clinical serum specimens (N = 98–200 for each analyte) were selected for the analysis according to their reactivity on the Abbott Architect. The results were compared against Abbott Architect and against consensus.

A generally high agreement was observed between the tests. Abbott Alinity had the lowest anti-HAV IgG/total specificity (75.9% against Abbott Architect and 83.0% against consensus). The comparatively low sensitivity of Siemens Atellica (78.2%), Abbott Alinity (87.5%) and DiaSorin Liaison (89.3%) for anti-HAV IgM against Abbott Architect may reflect a higher false-positive rate of Abbott Architect. Particular variation was observed in the sensitivity values of anti-HBc, HBsAg and HIV Ag/Ab between the test methods. DiaSorin Liaison anti-HBs gave consistently higher values as compared to the other tests.

The serodiagnostic methods for HIV and viral hepatitis of Abbott Architect, Abbott Alinity, DiaSorin Liaison, and Siemens Atellica performed well in comparison with each other. The observed differences between the tests will provide useful information for clinical laboratories in planning their workflows for screening and confirmation.