Human immunodeficiency virus 1 dual-target nucleic acid technology improves blood safety: 5 years of experience of the German Red Cross blood donor service Baden-Württemberg-Hessen.

BACKGROUND: RNA viruses are associated with a high frequency of mutations because of the missing proofreading function of polymerases, such as reverse transcriptase. Between 2007 and 2010, six blood donations with false-negative nucleic acid technology (NAT) results were reported in Germany. Therefore, NAT screening in two viral genome regions was introduced by our blood donation service in 2010 on a voluntary basis and became mandatory in Germany since the beginning of 2015. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Blood donor screening was done using, in parallel, the German Red Cross (GRC) HIV-1 CE long terminate repeats (LTR) PCR kit and the GRC HIV-1 gag CE PCR kit. In total, 7 million blood donations were screened during the study period from 2010 to 2014 with the GRC dual-target human immunodeficiency virus 1 (HIV-1) NAT system. Additionally, three suspicious specimens were analyzed by four monotargeted NAT assays and by five dual-target NAT assays. RESULTS: Three of 7 million donations tested negative using the 5'LTR-polymerase chain reaction, but they were positive if amplification was performed in the gag region. HIV antibodies were detected in all three donations. Nucleic acid sequence analysis identified a deletion of 22 bases within the 5'LTR probe binding region. Three different ltr-based monotargeted assays missed two donations, except for a low-reactive result obtained by one of the assays. In total, the detection rates for HIV-1-positive donations were 37.5% (3/8) for monotargeted assays and 100% (10/10) for dual-target assays. CONCLUSION: The current data demonstrate that dual-target NAT systems reduce the risk of false-negative HIV-1 NAT screening results.

Window period donations during primary cytomegalovirus infection and risk of transfusion-transmitted infections.

BACKGROUND: Donors with short interdonation intervals (e.g., apheresis donors) have an increased risk of window period donations. The frequency of cytomegalovirus (CMV) window period donations is important information to decide whether selection of seronegative donors might be advantageous for patients at risk for transfusion-transmitted CMV infections (TT-CMV). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: CMV seroconversion in 93 donors with positive results in routine CMV antibody testing within at most 35 days after the last seronegative sample was evaluated by Western blot and/or a second antibody test. In donors with unconfirmed seroconversion, an additional later sample was tested. Concentration of CMV DNA was determined in pre- and postseroconversion samples. RESULTS: CMV seroconversion was confirmed in 12 donors (13%). Among these, the last seronegative sample was CMV DNA positive in three donors (25%, below 30 IU/mL). The first seropositive sample was CMV DNA positive in 10 donors (83%, maximum 1600 IU/mL). Both prevalence and median concentration of CMV DNA were higher in the first seropositive sample (p = 0.004 and p = 0.02), with maximum concentrations being reached about 2 weeks after seroconversion. No CMV DNA was detected in samples from donors with unconfirmed seroconversion. CONCLUSION: At least in donors with short interdonation intervals, most suspected CMV seroconversions are due to false-positive results of the screening test. As window period donations are rare and contain less CMV DNA than the first seropositive donation, avoidance of blood products from primarily seropositive donors is especially helpful to avoid TT-CMV if donors with short interdonation intervals are concerned.