Search

Background: Conformational viral proteins potentially play an important role in the immunobiology of acute hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and may enable earlier antibody detection., Materials and Methods: HCV RNA was detected using nucleic acid testing. Early antibody production was evaluated using three enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) containing antigenic proteins not present in licensed EIAs. Respectively, these contained: (1) multiple-epitope fusion antigen (MEFA) 7.1-NS3/4a, (2) F and Core, and (3) E1/E2 proteins. NS3/4a is a conformational antigen retaining protease and helicase enzymatic activities. MEFA 7.1 contains the linear epitopes used in licenced EIAs, including the latest EIA-3.0, in combination with genotype 1-3 specific epitopes. Forty-two RNA positive, EIA-3.0 negative samples, including two persistently serosilent cases, were used to evaluate these research EIAs. As controls, 54 EIA-3.0 negative/RNA negative and three HCV RNA+/antibody positive specimens were included., Results: Only the MEFA 7.1-NS3/4a EIA was positive in seven (17%) of the 42 HCV RNA + specimens, in all three EIA-3.0 positive controls but in none of 54 EIA-3.0 negative/HCV RNA negative controls. Notably, six of the seven (86%) specimens had evidence of active hepatitis (ALT > 210 IU/l). The two serosilent cases were research EIA negative., Conclusion: A novel EIA with conformational and linear epitopes detected HCV antibodies in 17% of viraemic specimens missed by the standard reference EIA-3.0. Our research EIA appears to detect HCV antibodies closer to the initiation of acute hepatitis. Given that the average RNA-positive, antibody-negative window period is 56.4 days, this 17% yield would translate into a 10-day earlier detection of antibodies.

Background: The risk of viral infection associated with blood transfusion is lower than ever before because of aggressive screening and testing practices. NAT technology has lowered that risk even further but at an additional cost to the health-care system., Study Design and Methods: Marginal cost-effectiveness of NAT for HIV, HCV, and HBV in whole-blood donations was calculated with a previously published Markov decision model. This model was updated with disease incidence data from all 2001 American Red Cross whole-blood donations as well as window-period data from the Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study (REDS)., Results: Whole-blood donation NAT for HIV and HCV is expected to cost between 155 US dollars million (minipool NAT) and 428 million US dollars(single-donation NAT) per year in the US and avert 4 to 7 HIV infections and 56 to 59 HCV infections. Adding HBV NAT would be expected to avert 9 to 37 HBV infections at an additional cost of between 39 million US dollars and 130 million US dollars per year. Overall, NAT would cost between 4.7 million US dollars and 11.2 million US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year saved. Discontinuing HIV p24 antigen and HBc testing would offset this somewhat., Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of whole-blood NAT is poor. The testing cost would need to decrease significantly to bring the cost-effectiveness in line with most other accepted medical practices.

Background: An HIV-1 and HCV NAT blood screening assay (Procleix HIV-1/HCV, Gen-Probe, Inc.) simultaneously detecting HIV-1 and HCV RNA) has been implemented. Donor plasma samples reactive in the Procleix HIV-1/HCV assay are tested with the HIV-1 and HCV discriminatory assays to resolve whether HIV-1 RNA, HCV RNA, or both are present., Study Design and Methods: To determine the specificity of the Procleix HIV-1/HCV assay, data were analyzed for samples from 192,288 donations, tested in 16-member pools. To determine sensitivity, data were analyzed for 2014 commercial samples known to contain HIV-1, HCV, or both, as well as 10 HIV-1 and 10 HCV commercial seroconversion panels., Results: The specificity of the Procleix HIV-1/HCV assay was 99.7 percent. The HIV-1 and HCV discriminatory assays showed similar specificity. The sensitivity of the Procleix HIV-1/HCV assay was 99.9, 99.6, and 100 percent, respectively, for samples containing HIV-1, HCV, or both. The Procleix discriminatory assays were comparably sensitive. The Procleix discriminatory assays detected all tested samples of known HIV-1 subtype or HCV genotype. Procleix HIV-1/HCV testing of seroconversion panels showed that the median times to a positive reaction for HIV-1 and HCV were reduced by 3 and 25 days, respectively, compared to serologic tests., Conclusion: These studies support the use of the Procleix HIV-1/HCV assay for routine blood donor screening.

The US blood supply has been tested for HIV-1 and HCV using Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing (NAT) of small pools since early in 1999. Since the implementation of NAT under an investigational new drug (IND) application, the results for yield and false positivity have been amazingly consistent for greater than two years of testing even among multiple programmes using two different test methodologies and manufacturers: Gen-Probe/Chiron transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) and Roche PCR. All programmes in the US and Canada use NAT as a criterion for cellular as well as frozen product release. The focus of this manuscript is to provide an update of the programmes in the US and Canada, provide data in support of p24 antigen replacement by HIV-1 NAT, and discuss the projections of residual risk of HIV, HCV and HBV following NAT and the associated cost/benefit.

Background: Licensure of an enhanced HCV screening assay (HCV 3.0 EIA) without concurrent licensure of a complementary supplemental assay (i.e., RIBA HCV 3.0 strip immunoblot assay [RIBA-3]) decoupled screening and supplemental testing. In March 1998, the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) recommended the use of RIBA-3 on RIBA HCV 2.0 strip immunoblot assay (RIBA-2)-indeterminate units screened with HCV EIA 3.0., Study Design and Methods: The sensitivity of RIBA-2 and RIBA-3 was compared in tests on HCV 3.0 EIA-repeatably reactive (RR) units identified immediately after the implementation of HCV 3.0 EIA screening. Two protocols were evaluated: parallel testing of HCV 3.0 EIA-RR units by RIBA-2 and RIBA-3 and reflex testing of HCV 3.0 EIA-RR and RIBA-3-confirmed-positive units by RIBA-2. All specimens with discordant RIBA-2 and RIBA-3 results and a representative sampling with concordant RIBA results were tested by PCR., Results: In the parallel testing protocol, 99,777 donations were screened, with 245 HCV 3.0 EIA-RR specimens included in the study. Of 166 RIBA-2-positive samples, 165 tested positive in RIBA-3 (1 sample reacted to the control superoxide dismutase antigen in RIBA-3). Thirty-two (74%) of 43 RIBA-2-indeterminate specimens and 4 (11%) of 36 RIBA-2-negative specimens tested positive in RIBA-3. HCV RNA was identified in 5 (16%) of 32 RIBA-2-indeterminate/RIBA-3-positive donations, as well as in 26 (70%) of 37 concordant RIBA-2/RIBA-3-positive donations. In the reflex testing protocol, 292,459 donations were screened, with 709 HCV 3.0 EIA-RR specimens included in the study. RIBA-3 testing yielded 517 (73%) positive specimens, of which 50 (9.7%) tested indeterminate and 15 (2.9%) tested negative in RIBA-2. Among the RIBA-discordant specimens, 10 (20%) RIBA-2-indeterminate specimens and 1 (7%) RIBA-2-negative specimens tested positive in PCR; in comparison, 60 (77%) of 78 concordant RIBA-2/RIBA-3-positive units tested positive in PCR., Conclusions: RIBA-3 is significantly more sensitive than RIBA-2 in testing of HCV 3.0 EIA-screened donations. During the review process of this manuscript, the FDA licensed the RIBA-3 test.

Background: The purpose of this study was to explore strategies to minimize the number of unwarranted consignee notifications resulting from hepatitis C virus (HCV) first-generation (single-antigen) enzyme immunoassay (EIA 1.0) targeted lookback., Study Design and Method: The four blood centers participating in this study contributed data on 3753 HCV EIA 1.0-repeatably reactive (RR) donations. The analysis focused on 1) statistical evaluation of HCV EIA 1.0 signal-to-cutoff (S/CO) ratios versus HCV second-generation recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA 2.0) interpretation from all participating blood centers and 2) RNA testing using transcription-mediated amplification on all HCV EIA 1.0 RR/RIBA 2. 0-positive or -indeterminate specimens and a subset of RIBA 2. 0-negative donations for which specimens were available., Results: Analysis of HCV EIA 1.0 S/CO ratios versus RIBA 2.0 indicated that 1180 (89%) of 1326 RIBA 2.0-positive specimens had an S/CO ratio >2. 5, while 146 (11%) had a ratio 2.5, while 1954 (87%) had a ratio 2.5. HCV RNA was detected in only 2 (1.5%) of 137 HCV EIA 1.0-RR/RIBA 2.0-negative specimens: 1 of these 2 specimens had an S/CO >2.5, while the other had an S/CO 2.5 yielded an 89- percent sensitivity for RIBA 2.0-positive specimens, and donations with an S/CO ratio >2.5 had a 75-percent probability of being RIBA 2.0 positive. A policy recommendation to use the S/CO ratio to triage lookback would prevent unwarranted notification of 87 percent of recipients of blood from RIBA 2.0-negative donors and would result in a failure to notify only 5 to 10 percent of recipients potentially exposed to infectious units.