'Noise' in microbiological screening assays

Hepatitis B Virus Blood Screening: Need for Reappraisal of Blood Safety Measures?

Over the past decades, the risk of HBV transfusion–transmission has been steadily reduced through the recruitment of volunteer donors, the selection of donors based on risk-behavior evaluation, the development of increasingly more sensitive hepatitis B antigen (HBsAg) assays, the use of hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) screening in some low-endemic countries, and the recent implementation of HBV nucleic acid testing (NAT). Despite this accumulation of blood safety measures, the desirable zero risk goal has yet to be achieved. The residual risk of HBV transfusion–transmission appears associated with the preseroconversion window period and occult HBV infection characterized by the absence of detectable HBsAg and extremely low levels of HBV DNA. Infected donations tested false-negative with serology and/or NAT still persist and derived blood components were shown to transmit the virus, although rarely. Questions regarding the apparent redundancy of some safety measures prompted debates on how to reduce the cost of HBV blood screening. In particular, accumulating data strongly suggests that HBsAg testing may add little, if any HBV risk reduction value when HBV NAT and anti-HBc screening also apply. Absence or minimal acceptable infectious risk needs to be assessed before considering discontinuing HBsAg. Nevertheless, HBsAg remains essential in high-endemic settings where anti-HBc testing cannot be implemented without compromising blood availability. HBV screening strategy should be decided according to local epidemiology, estimate of the infectious risk, and resources.

Donors whose blood reacts falsely positive in transfusion microbiology screening assays need not be lost to transfusion

Donations that repeatedly react in transfusion microbiology screening assays are usually discarded; with appropriate confirmatory testing on the index and on follow-up samples, the great majority of these can be shown to be falsely positive. Under carefully controlled conditions, with secure information transfer, these donations, although still reactive in the primary screening assays, can be made available for clinical use after testing and obtaining negative results with alternative assays from a list of assays evaluated as suitable for the release of blood donations. We will describe a generic algorithm that can be applied to all markers.

Challenges in the Testing of Non-Heart-Beating Cadavers for Viral Markers: Implications for the Safety of Tissue Donors

Natural changes that occur in blood and tissue after death may result in false positive results in antigen and antibody detection tests performed to identify markers of viral infection in potential tissue donors. Such tissue, which might otherwise be acceptable for therapeutic purposes, would not meet current standards for safe tissue banking. This is especially important in the context of insufficiency in the tissue supply. In this study, a series of blood samples collected during routine post-mortem examination was assayed using a range of commercially available kits for the detection of HBsAg, anti-HCV and anti-HIV 1 + 2 antibody/antigen. Results of tests on 104 samples collected from 97 individuals indicate that some kits result in a higher number of initial reactive samples than others. Approximately 40% of samples were reactive in one or more HBsAg assay, less than 10% in at least one anti-HIV kit and only 1 sample at low level on an anti-HCV kit. Liver or lymph node samples from individuals whose serum sample gave reactive results in antigen/antibody assays were tested for viral nucleic acid in the corresponding nucleic acid amplification test. Only one individual's sample was confirmed to test positive for HBsAg in a confirmatory neutralisation test and by nucleic acid amplification technology, and a second individual whose serum was scored reactive for anti-HCV, but negative for HBsAg, had a liver sample which was HBV DNA positive and HCV RNA negative. The results of the study indicate that antibody/antigen assays are not as specific as NAT using state of the art DNA extraction techniques. Both types of assay complement each other and used together will help assure the safety of tissues for transplantation.

Analysis of voluntary blood donors with biologic false reactivity on chemiluminescent immunoassays and implications for donor management

BACKGROUND

Biologic false-reactive (BFR) results in blood donors are problematic due to both component loss and donor-management issues. This report analyzes the results of a longitudinal study of BFR donors and the implications for donor management.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Donors who gave BFR results on HBsAg, HIV-1/HIV-2, HCV, or HTLV-I/HTLV/II chemiluminescent immunoassays (ChLIAs) (PRISM, Abbott) between May 1997 to March 1999 were analyzed. Donors were followed up for up to three donations after an index BFR episode. In addition, results of any negative donations before the index BFR result but within the study period were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

For donors who gave an index BFR result on the HBsAg ChLIA, 14.3 percent remained BFR at subsequent donations, whereas for the anti-HIV-1/HIV-2, anti-HCV, and anti-HTLV-I/HTLV-II ChLIAs, the figures were 66.0, 77.4, and 71.6 percent, respectively. For donors who gave a second BFR result, the percentage who remained BFR at subsequent donations was 75.0, 80.6, 84.6, and 74.5 percent for the four assays, respectively. The rate at which negative repeat donors became BFR during the study period was 0.02, 0.07, 0.12, and 0.02 percent for the HBsAg, anti-HIV-1/HIV-2, anti-HCV, and anti-HTLV-I/HTLV-II assays, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that donors who give an index BFR result on the ChLIAs (PRISM, Abbott) should be allowed to continue donating because most donors with a HBsAg BFR result were negative at subsequent donations, and between 22.6 and 34.0 percent of those with BFR results on the HIV-1/HIV-2, HCV, or HTLV-I/HTLV-II assays gave subsequent negative donations. However, donors who give a second BFR result should be counseled and deferred because they were very unlikely to give subsequent negative results.

Impact of changes in viral marker screening assays

BACKGROUND

Monitoring the performance of routinely used infectious disease serologic tests is necessary to evaluate their effectiveness in identifying true-positive units and erroneously disqualifying safe blood donors.

METHODS

With two large screening test data sets collected between 1991 and 1998 and between 1997 and 2000, the impact of changes in screening assays for HIV, HCV, and HBsAg was analyzed with regard to the prevalence of confirmed-positive, indeterminate, and confirmed-negative results and the deferral of donors with an indeterminate or negative results (donor loss).

RESULTS

The prevalence of indeterminate results and donors loss increased significantly in the 6 months after introduction of an HIV-1/2 EIA. A second-generation HCV EIA increased the detection of confirmed-positive donations in repeat donors (p < 0.001) and increased the prevalence of indeterminate donations. Implementation of a third-generation HCV EIA resulted in a significant decrease in indeterminate results in first-time donors. Nonspecific test results increased when HBsAg test kits from a different manufacturer were introduced or different lots of HIV antibody screening test kits from the same manufacturer were used.

CONCLUSION

Introduction of newly licensed versions of assays, switching kit manufacturers, and lot-to-lot variations have an impact on rates of deferrals of safe donors as well as sensitivity of routine screening. Before considering changes in screening tests, blood centers should be aware of, and evaluate, the potential impact on donor loss.