The specificity of anti-HCV supplementary assays

Anti-HCV immunoblot indeterminate results in blood donors: non-specific reactivity or past exposure to HCV?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The significance of anti-HCV immunoblot (IB) indeterminate results can be difficult to determine. We analysed results for blood donors tested on the MP Diagnostics HCV Blot 3.0 IB assay to determine whether indeterminate results representing past exposure to HCV could be distinguished from those due to non-specific reactivity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Results for all donors tested by IB during the study period (July 2010 to December 2013) were included in this study.

RESULTS

Of 131 donors tested by IB, 34 (26.0%) were negative, 38 (29.0%) were indeterminate, and 59 (45.0%) were positive. There was no significant difference in IB band reactivity strength between indeterminate and positive donors. The PRISM HCV chemiluminescent immunoassay (ChLIA) sample to cut-off (s/co) ratio distribution for the indeterminate donors was significantly higher than for those with biological false reactivity (P = 0·037), but significantly lower than for donors who were IB positive/HCV RNA negative (P < 0·001) or IB not tested/HCV RNA positive (P < 0·001). Of donors available for follow-up, 53.1% of the indeterminate group disclosed a putative risk factor for HCV infection compared to 39.4% (P < 0·001) for the IB-negative group, 76.6% (P = 0·065) for the IB-positive group and 83.4% (P < 0·001) for the HCV RNA-positive group.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicate that PRISM ChLIA s/co ratios >2·00 with IB indeterminate results predict exposure to HCV, particularly in the presence of putative risk factors for HCV infection. These findings may be applied to optimizing counselling of donors with indeterminate HCV results.

Prospective study of the meaning of indeterminate results of the recombinant immunoblot assay for hepatitis C virus in blood donors

BACKGROUND

The interpretation of "indeterminate" results of the recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA) is a particularly sensitive issue for Transfusion Services, and donors with such a serological condition require long-term follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the Immunohaematology and Transfusion Medicine Division of Umberto I University Hospital (Rome, Italy), 102,979 donor blood units were screened for hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) over a 5-year period (01.01.2000 - 31.12.2004). Since 24.10.2001, HCV-RNA testing was added. All samples repeatedly reactive by ELISA were then submitted to a HCV confirmatory assay (RIBA).

RESULTS

Among the 102,979 donors we found 271 positive to HCV ELISA testing. The results of the RIBA assay for these donors were negative in 178 (65.7%) cases, positive in 28 (10.3%) and indeterminate in 65 (24.0%). Of the 65 subjects with an indeterminate pattern, 24 completed a sufficient follow-up (median 25 months; range, 6 - 52), during which some (n = 8; 33%) converted to a negative status, some (n = 16; 67%) maintained their reactivity pattern, but none became seropositive for HCV.

CONCLUSIONS

The HCV-RIBA indeterminate status may indicate either a non-specific reaction (false positive) or a real pre-existing or initial infection and does not, therefore, enable a prediction of outcome. The use of HCV genomic assays (nucleic acid amplification testing), which are more specific than antibody-based assays (ELISA, RIBA), therefore improves HCV blood donor testing by allowing an accurate interpretation of such primary assays.

Epidemiological, biological and histological characterization of patients with indeterminate third-generation recombinant immunoblot assay antibody results for hepatitis C virus

We studied the epidemiological, laboratory and histological characteristics of a group of patients with positive antibodies against hepatitis C virus (HCV) as determined by third-generation enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and with indeterminate HCV antibody positivity as established by third-generation recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA-3). The results obtained were compared with those recorded in a group of RIBA-3-positive patients. Both groups correspond to blood donors in whom the prevalence of hepatitis C is low. There were no statistically significant intergroup differences in mean age, or in the presence of infection risk factors. RNA positivity was much more frequent in the RIBA-positive group (71%vs 10%; P < 0.05), as was transaminase elevation during the 3 years of follow-up (54%vs 13%; P < 0.05). In 46% of the RIBA-indeterminate patients the liver biopsy proved normal, or only liver steatosis or minimal changes were detected, while 33% had persistent chronic hepatitis, and 21% showed active chronic hepatitis. A mean Knodell index score of 2.28 was recorded; 50% of the subjects showed no fibrosis, 46% grade 1 fibrosis (fibrous portal expansion), 4% grade 2 fibrosis (bridging fibrosis), and none grade 3 fibrosis (liver cirrhosis). In the RIBA-positive group, a greater percentage of patients had active chronic hepatitis, a greater Knodell index, and increased-grade fibrosis. It can be concluded that the RIBA-3-indeterminate group is epidemiologically similar to the RIBA-3-positive series, although with a lesser prevalence of laboratory test alterations, a lower viral replication index, and more likely to have benign disease - particularly in subjects without viral replication.

Can we improve the management of blood donors with nonspecific reactivity in viral screening and confirmatory assays?

Donors with nonspecific reactivity in viral screening or confirmatory assays are problematic for blood services because of donor management issues and product loss. Considerable experience has now accumulated in the use of screening and confirmatory assays; therefore, it is timely to examine the ways in which donors with nonspecific reactivity are managed. In this review, we summarize the causes and characteristics of nonspecific reactivity in blood donors and approaches for reducing the number of nonspecific reactive results and we offer some suggestions for improving the management of these donors.

Performance of second- and third-generation RIBAs for confirmation of third-generation HCV EIA-reactive blood donations. Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study

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.