Table 5 Indirect serological assays for HSV diagnosis
From: Diagnosis of genital herpes simplex virus infection in the clinical laboratory
Method | Principle | Sample | Sensitivity | Specificity | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Western blot | Western blot HSV-1 | Serum | ≈100% | ≈100% | Reference (“gold standard”) test proposed by University of Washington (USA) | Not commercially available |
Expensive | ||||||
[UW-WB] | ||||||
Specific of HSV-1 and HSV-2 | 2–3 days for results | |||||
Western blot HSV-2 | ||||||
Detect early sero-conversion to HSV-2 in patient with prior HSV-1 infection | ||||||
Earliest sero-conversion : 13 days | ||||||
Enzyme immune-assay | Monoclonal antibody-blocking EIA | Serum’ | ≈100% | ≈100% | Reference (“gold standard”) test proposed by the Central Public Health Laboratory in the United Kingdom; 98% concordance with WU-WB | Not commercially available |
(African sera : 98%) | (African sera : 97%) | |||||
Distinguish between HSV-1 and HSV-2 | ||||||
Enzyme immune-assay | ELISA | Serum | 93–98% | 93–99% | Commercially available | May lack of sensitivity and specificity |
Distinguish between HSV-1 and HSV-2 | Lack of specific on African sera | |||||
Point of care tests | Immuno-filtration | Serum Capillaryblood | 96% | 87–98% | Less expensive than Western blot | Commercially available only for HSV-2 |
Accurate results rapidly (6 min.) | Expensive | |||||
Not for large volume screening | ||||||
Easily to carry out | ||||||
Detects seroconversion within 4 weeks of presentation of 80% of patients with HSV-2 episodes | Complexity nonwaived (moderate) |