Dow B C, Munro H, Buchanan I, Ferguson K, Davidson F, Lycett C, Jarvis M, Cleland A, Petrik J, Lumley S, MacLean A
Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service Microbiology Reference Unit, West Scotland Blood Transfusion Centre, Glasgow, UK.
Vox Sang. 2004 Jan;86(1):15-20. doi: 10.1111/j.0042-9007.2004.00387.x.
This study was conducted to analyse the usefulness of hepatitis C virus (HCV) core antigen tests for the confirmation of HCV infection in a donor presenting as nucleic acid amplification technology (NAT) positive but negative for antibodies to HCV (anti-HCV).
Blood donations were screened, in parallel, for anti-HCV using the Abbott PRISM HCV Chemiluminescent immunoassay (ChLIA) and an 'in-house' HCV NAT (pools of up to 95 donations). An HCV NAT-positive antibody-negative donor was identified. Twelve follow-up samples were obtained and tested with various HCV antigen (including the recently marketed Trak-C second-generation assay) and HCV antibody assays.
The single HCV NAT-positive, antibody-negative donation was identified from 1 117 681 donations screened in the 4-year period, July 1999 to June 2003. The index donation was positive by Ortho HCV core antigen enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and Ortho Trak-C (second-generation HCV core antigen EIA). An archive sample, taken 127 days prior to the index donation, was negative for all HCV markers. Subsequent samples demonstrated a loss of reactivity in the Ortho HCV core antigen EIA and reduced activity in the Ortho Trak-C until day 69. Immunoblot (Ortho RIBA-3) and HCV PRISM became positive on day 62, whilst Ortho HCV ELISA was not positive until day 132 or Biorad HCV ELISA until day 160. An alternative immunoblot (Innogenetics Innolia III) was positive from day 55. RNA levels fluctuated considerably during the follow-up period, being completely undetectable by routine screening methods at the time-point around seroconversion; subsequently, antibody was detected using all assays investigated.
This HCV-converting blood donor provided a unique panel of samples for using to assess current (and future) HCV assay systems. The overall test results led to the conclusion that individual HCV antigen testing should not be considered as equivalent to HCV NAT minipool screening. Trak-C antigen testing may be considered as a suitable confirmatory assay for isolated HCV NAT reactivity.
本研究旨在分析丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)核心抗原检测在确认核酸扩增技术(NAT)检测呈阳性但抗-HCV抗体检测呈阴性的献血者是否感染HCV方面的实用性。
采用雅培PRISM HCV化学发光免疫分析法(ChLIA)和一种“内部”HCV NAT(最多95份献血样本混合检测)对献血样本同时进行抗-HCV筛查。确定了一名HCV NAT检测呈阳性但抗体检测呈阴性的献血者。采集了12份随访样本,并用多种HCV抗原检测方法(包括最近上市的Trak-C第二代检测法)和HCV抗体检测方法进行检测。
在1999年7月至2003年6月的4年期间,对1117681份献血样本进行筛查,确定了唯一一份HCV NAT检测呈阳性但抗体检测呈阴性的样本。该索引样本通过Ortho HCV核心抗原酶免疫分析法(EIA)和Ortho Trak-C(第二代HCV核心抗原EIA)检测呈阳性。在索引样本采集前127天采集的存档样本,所有HCV标志物检测均为阴性。后续样本显示,Ortho HCV核心抗原EIA的反应性逐渐丧失,Ortho Trak-C的活性在第69天之前逐渐降低。免疫印迹法(Ortho RIBA-3)和HCV PRISM在第62天呈阳性,而Ortho HCV ELISA直到第132天才呈阳性,Biorad HCV ELISA直到第160天才呈阳性。另一种免疫印迹法(Innogenetics Innolia III)从第55天起呈阳性。在随访期间,RNA水平波动较大,在血清转化时间点左右,常规筛查方法完全检测不到RNA;随后,使用所有研究的检测方法均检测到了抗体。
这位发生HCV血清转化的献血者提供了一组独特的样本,用于评估当前(及未来)的HCV检测系统。总体检测结果得出结论,不应将单独的HCV抗原检测视为等同于HCV NAT混合样本筛查。Trak-C抗原检测可被视为对孤立的HCV NAT反应性进行确认的合适检测方法。