Background: Two HPV serological assays, the competitive Luminex immunoassay (cLIA), and an enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) against HPV16 have been used to define HPV-naïve subcohorts within large HPV vaccination trials. Some of the variation in estimated vaccine efficacies may be due to the differences in these assays used to define the HPV-naïve subgroups. To guide the interpretation of published results, we compared these assays. Methods: Replicate enrollment sera from a stratified sample of 388 unvaccinated women from the control arm of the Costa Rica HPV 16/18 Vaccine Trial were measured for antibodies against HPV16 using cLIA and ELISA. Agreement between the assays was estimated using standard and alternative assay cutoffs. Results: Using laboratory-determined seropositivity cutoffs, sampling-adjusted HPV16 seropositivity was 24.8% by ELISA and 7.2% by cLIA. Comparing cLIA and ELISA antibody levels based on the standard cutoffs, overall agreement was 53% (positive-agreement = 49%). The poor agreement was mainly driven by the higher sensitivity of the ELISA than cLIA, resulting in 30% of the ELISA-positive sample that were cLIA-negative (none of the ELISA-negatives were cLIA-positive). Increasing ELISA cutoff to 54 ELISA units (EU)/mL (the level which maximized agreement with cLIA; ELISA standard cutoff is 8 EU/mL) resulted in higher agreement (overall agreement = 91%; positive agreement = 78%). Conclusions: ELISA and cLIA are different from each other based on the laboratory-determined cutoff. Increasing ELISA cutoff increased agreement with cLIA, which could facilitate comparisons among studies that use different assays. Impact: Keeping cLIA at the laboratory-determined cutoff but altering ELISA cutoff for seropositivity might facilitate vaccine efficacy comparisons in the naïve cohorts defined by cLIA.
ASJC Scopus subject areas