Search

ABSTRACTA clinical evaluation of an automated quantitative PCR assay, the COBAS AMPLICOR HCV MONITOR test, version 2.0 (v2.0), was carried out to assess the performance of this test in comparison with that of the previous, manual version, the AMPLICOR HCV MONITOR test, and with that of nested PCR. Serial dilutions of serum samples infected with genotype 1b, 2a, or 3, as well as synthetic RNA transcripts and serum samples derived from 87 patients with chronic hepatitis C and infected with genotype 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4, or 5, were analyzed to determine the ability of the system to efficiently quantify various hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotypes. These experiments showed that the COBAS AMPLICOR HCV MONITOR test, v2.0, has mean intra-assay, interassay, and interoperator coefficients of variation that range from 22 to 34.5% and a 3-logarithm dynamic range, which spans from 103to 106copies/ml. Compared to the previous, manual version of the test, the COBAS AMPLICOR HCV MONITOR test, v2.0, showed an improved efficacy for all genotypes, especially genotypes 2, 3, and 4, whose estimated concentrations were on average 1 logarithm higher. When used to monitor patients under treatment, however, both versions showed the same patterns of viremia, indicating that the COBAS AMPLICOR HCV MONITOR test, v2.0, and the AMPLICOR HCV MONITOR test were equally effective at detecting relative viremia changes in serial samples. As expected, the automated test was less sensitive than nested PCR; among specimens from a cohort of patients treated with interferon, nested PCR identified three more viremic specimens, which probably contained very low concentrations of HCV RNA.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the major etiologic agent of parenterally transmitted non-A,non-B hepatitis. To determine whether there is a relationship between this virus agent and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the sera of patients with HCC and chronic hepatitis were assessed using a sensitive immunoassay for HCV antibody. Anti-HCV was detected in 65% of 132 patients with HCC, without any relationship with the presence of the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg). The prevalence (74%) of anti-HCV was high, as expected in patients with putative non-A,non-B cirrhosis also. The prevalence of anti-HCV was less in patients with HBsAg-positive cirrhosis (28%) and in patients with disease not related to viral hepatitis and healthy controls (8%). These data suggest, but do not prove, that HCV is an important factor associated with HCC.

The antibody to hepatitis C virus (anti-HCV) was measured by an immunoassay in 507 serum samples from 94 patients with acute and chronic post-transfusion non-A, non-B hepatitis (NANB) and in 436 healthy blood donors. Anti-HCV was found in 70.8 of patients with acute hepatitis, in 78.2 with chronic hepatitis, and in 1.4 of healthy blood donors. In acute hepatitis, anti-HCV appeared in the serum from 4 to 34 weeks after transfusion and from 1 to 30 weeks after the onset of the overt disease. Three patients with resolving hepatitis (21%) and 2 who developed chronic hepatitis (10%) lost anti-HCV during a mean follow-up period of 28 months. Among the 36 patients with chronic hepatitis, 2 (6%) lost anti-HCV after 12 months and 8 years respectively. These data indicate that in recent years HCV has been the major etiologic agent of acute and chronic transfusion-associated hepatitis (TAH) in our geographical area. The late appearance of anti-HCV from the onset of clinical and biochemical signs of acute hepatitis in more than 70% of patients limits the diagnostic utility of this assay for an earlier serological diagnosis of acute NANB hepatitis. Additional studies are required to determine the diagnostic significance of this antibody in chronic NANB hepatitis.