Sensitivity and specificity of the new Bio-Rad HIV screening test, Access HIV combo V2.

Diagnosing of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) types 1 and 2 requires a screening with a highly sensitive and specific enzyme immunoassay and a low detection limit for the HIV-1 p24 antigen to minimize the diagnostic window. The objective of the study was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and p24 limit of detection of the Access HIV combo V2 assay. Retrospective part of sensitivity: 452 HIV-1 positive samples from 403 chronic (9 different HIV-1 group M subtypes, 22 different HIV-1 group M CRFs, and 3 HIV-1 group O), 49 primary HIV-1 infections, 103 HIV-2 positive samples assessed at Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, 600 untyped HIV-1, 10 subtype-D, and 159 untyped HIV-2 samples assessed in Bio-Rad Laboratories. Prospective part of clinical specificity: all consecutive samples in two blood donor facilities and Pitié-Salpêtrière (6,570 patients) tested with Access HIV combo V2 and respectively Prism HIV O Plus (Abbott) or Architect HIV Ag/Ab Combo (Abbott) for Ag/Ab screening, and Procleix Ultrio (Gen Probe) for HIV RNA screening. Limit of detection for p24 antigen was assessed on recombinant virus-like particles (10 HIV-1 group M subtypes/CRFs, HIV-1 group O). Sensitivity [95% confidence interval (CI)] of Access HIV combo V2 was 100% (99.63-100) for HIV-1 chronic infection, 100% (98.55-100) for HIV-2 chronic infection, and 100% (93.00-100) for HIV-1 primary infection. Specificity (95% CI) was 99.98 (99.91-100). Limit of detection for p24 antigen was around 0.43 IU/mL [interquartile range (0.38-0.56)], and consistent across the 11 analyzed subtypes/CRFs. Hence, with both high sensitivity and specificity, Access HIV combo V2 is a suitable screening assay for HIV-1/2 infection. IMPORTANCE: Bio-Rad is one of the leading human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening test manufacturers. This laboratory released in 2021 their new version of the Access combo HIV test. However, to date, there have been no studies regarding its performance, especially its limit of detection of the diverse p24 antigen. We present the sensitivity (chronic and primary HIV-1 infection and HIV-2 chronic infection), specificity (blood donors and hospitalized patients), and raw data for the p24/seroconversion panels the manufacturer gave to the European agencies.

[An inter-laboratory study of anti-HCV antibody detection in saliva samples]. / Etude inter-laboratoires de la détection des anticorps anti-VHC sur prélèvements salivaires.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody detection in the saliva samples of 108 drug users in an inter-laboratory study. METHODS: Between January and June 2001, 108 subjects in Lille, Metz and Lens received a test to detect anti-HCV antibodies in their saliva. Two consecutive saliva samples were taken in each subject (Salivette system, Sarstedt). An HCV serology (Axsym HCV 3.0, Abbott) was also performed and serum HCV RNA detection by Amplicor HCV 2.0 (Roche) was performed when HCV serology was positive. Sixty three patients had a negative HCV serology, 45 had a positive HCV serology, and 31 of these had positive HCV RNA as well. Tests for the detection of the anti HCV antibody in saliva samples were performed as a blind study in both the Lille and the Thionville laboratories. RESULTS: The sensitivity of saliva anti-HCV antibody tests was respectively 71% (32/45) and 78% (35/45) in Lille and Thionville. In the event of positive HCV viremia, the sensitivity was respectively 90% (28/31) and 93% (29/31). The specificity was respectively 97% (61/63) and 98.5% (62/63). Results from the two laboratories agreed for 101 saliva tests while discrepancies were found in 7 (Kappa Concordance Coefficient: 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms, in a large, unselected population sample, that anti-HCV antibody detection tests in saliva allow the detection of 90% of viremic HCV-antibody-positive patients with excellent specificity. The simplicity and reproductibility of this technique makes it a precious tool for epidemiological studies.

Evaluation of the enhanced bacterial detection system for screening of contaminated platelets.

BACKGROUND: The Pall third-generation enhanced bacterial detection system (eBDS) was recently approved for detection of bacterial contamination in leukoreduced platelets (PLTs). The method is based on the measurement of the oxygen content as a marker for bacteria. eBDS incorporates major modifications including removal of the sample-set filter, modification of the culture medium, and incubation with agitation of the sample pouch. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Ten whole blood-derived random-donor PLT units collected on Day 1 after donation and 10 single-donor apheresis PLT units were spiked with low levels of bacteria in three different blood transfusion centers. Inoculation was performed at a final concentration of 5 to 50 colony-forming units per mL with reference strains of five organisms involved in severe transfusion-associated infections. PLT units were stored at 22 degrees C for 24 hours before sampling. Six sample sets were then sterile-connected to each unit and placed on a horizontal agitator at 35 degrees C for 18 or 24 hours of incubation. RESULTS: No false-positive results were obtained, indicating a 100 percent specificity of the assay. Of 126 spiked sample pouches tested, 61 of 63 (96.82%) and 63 of 63 (100%) were detected positive after 18 or 24 hours of incubation, respectively. In the two missed cases that failed to detect Bacillus cereus, the measured oxygen was slightly above the detection threshold but was markedly different from the negative samples. CONCLUSION: The eBDS method allows definitive testing of PLTs as soon as 42 hours after collection and offers an alternative culture method to the BacT/ALERT system.

A new HCV core antigen assay based on disassociation of immune complexes: an alternative to molecular biology in the diagnosis of early HCV infection.

BACKGROUND: An EIA based on immune complex disassociation of nucleocapsid proteins of HCV has been developed to detect and quantify HCV core antigen. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: To evaluate whether this new assay (trak-C, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics) could be an alternative to NAT during the window period, its sensitivity in this context was assessed, and its performance was compared with that of a first-generation HCV core antigen assay dedicated to the blood screening (HCV core antigen ELISA). Studied populations included nine HCV RNA-positive, HCV antibody-negative blood donors and 23 hemodialysis patients who underwent an HCV seroconversion. From these individuals, 81 samples (23 HCV RNA-negative and 58 HCV RNA-positive) sequentially collected during the phase before seroconversion were tested. RESULTS: The nine blood donor samples were positive for the presence of HCV core antigen by the trak-C, and 6 of 8 tested were positive for the presence of HCV core antigen by blood screening ELISA. In the hemodialysis cohort, the 23 HCV RNA-negative samples were negative with the two HCV core antigen assays. Among the 58 HCV RNA-positive samples, 46 of 57 (80.7%) tested were positive for the presence of HCV core antigen with the blood screening assay, and 57 of 58 (98.2%) were positive for the presence of HCV core antigen with the trak-C. The mean delays in detecting HCV infection between trak-C and the appearance of HCV antibodies, between HCV RNA testing and trak-C, and between trak-C and HCV core antigen ELISA were 58.2, 0.24, and 3.33 days, respectively. CONCLUSION: Trak-C was more sensitive than the blood screening assay and had similar performance to HCV RNA assay in the window period. Trak-C could constitute an alternative to NAT for the diagnosis of HCV infection during the window period, especially when molecular biology procedures cannot be implemented.

Sensitivity of HCV RNA and HIV RNA blood screening assays.

BACKGROUND: The FDA requirement for sensitivity of viral NAT methods used in blood screening is a 95-percent detection limit of 100 copies per mL, whereas the NAT screening system should have a sensitivity of at least 5000 copies per mL per individual donation. According to the Common Technical Specifications of the European Directive 98/79/EC for in vitro diagnostics, viral standard dilutions (calibrated against the WHO standard) should be tested at least 24 times for a statistically valid assessment of the 95-percent detection limit. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Viral standard dilution panels (PeliCheck, VQC-CLB) were prepared for HCV RNA genotypes 1 and 3 and for HIV RNA genotypes B and E. In a multicenter study, 23 laboratories tested the panels all together in 8 to 91 test runs per NAT method. RESULTS: The following 95-percent detection limits (and 95% CIs) were found on the HCV RNA genotype 1 reference panels (shown as geq/mL): Gen-Probe TMA, 85 (64-118); AmpliScreen, 126 (83-225); AmpliScreen with NucliSens Extractor, 21 (13-44); Amplicor with NucliSens Extractor, 69 (50-102), and Amplicor with Qiagen extraction technology, 144 (74-102). On HIV RNA genotype B dilution panels, the following 95-percent detection limits were found (shown as geq/mL): Gen-Probe TMA, 31 (20-52); AmpliScreen, 126 (67-311); AmpliScreen with NucliSens Extractor, 37 (23-69), and NucliSens QL assay, 123 (51-566). HIV RNA genotype E panels were detected with equal sensitivity as HIV RNA genotype B panels. In the Gen-Probe TMA assay, the 50-percent detection limits on HIV RNA type B and type E were 3.6 (2.6-5.0) and 3.9 (2.4-5.8) geq per mL, respectively. The HCV RNA genotype 1 and 3 standards were detected with equal sensitivity. CONCLUSION: The differences in sensitivity between NAT assays can be explained by the input of isolated viral nucleic acid in the amplification reactions. The FDA requirements for sensitivity of NAT blood screening assays can be met by the Gen-probe TMA, as well as by the AmpliScreen assays, particularly when combined with the NucliSens Extractor.

Expertise of French laboratories in detection, genotyping, and quantification of hepatitis C virus RNA in serum.

Before initiating new large-scale therapeutic trials for hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients, the French Health Authorities for HCV research decided to organize an evaluation of the expertise of laboratories that could be engaged to undertake molecular biology assays in such trials; 21 experienced laboratories participated in this national evaluation of laboratory expertise, which was performed in two successive rounds. The first round evaluated the laboratories for their abilities to detect HCV RNA in serum, determine genotypes, and quantify HCV RNA loads. The results observed by qualitative assays for HCV RNA detection were 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity for all laboratories. The genotyping results were 100% concordant for 9 laboratories and greater than 90% for 10 laboratories. By contrast, large coefficients of variation were observed for quantitative determination of HCV RNA loads, leading to a second round with standardized quantitative assays only. The dispersion of the results was larger by the AMPLICOR HCV Monitor assay than by the branched-DNA assay (mean coefficients of variation, 57.4 and 16.9%, respectively). In the majority of cases, discrepancies between the results of the two tests were found for samples with high viral loads. These results indicate the usefulness of validating, by controlling for expertise, both the reliabilities of laboratories involved in multicenter work and the standardized assays chosen for use in the evaluation of the biological impacts of new therapies.