Validation of the NucliSens Extractor combined with the AmpliScreen HIV version 1.5 and HCV version 2.0 test for application in NAT minipool screening.

BACKGROUND: Routine HCV NAT minipool screening (48 donations) of all blood donations was implemented in July 1999 and was combined with HIV NAT in November 2000. This report describes the validation of the NAT methods and the results of quality control testing. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Nucleic acid was extracted from 2-mL plasma samples by using an automated silica-based extraction method (NucliSens Extractor, Organon Teknika). Eluates were tested with RT-PCR (AmpliScreen HIV-1 version 1.5 and AmpliScreen HCV version 2.0 test, Roche Diagnostic Systems). HIV-1 and HCV RNA reference panels and run controls (PeliCheck and PeliSpy, respectively, Sanquin-CLB) and human plasma minipools were used for NAT validation. RESULTS: The 95-percent detection limit (and 95% CI) for HIV-1 RNA genotype B, HIV-1 RNA genotype E, and HCV RNA genotype 1 was 32 (19-76), 30 (17-72), and 21 (13-44) genome equivalents (geq) per mL, respectively. During initial validation, 2332 samples for HIV-1 RNA and 2644 samples for HCV RNA were analyzed, with 13 (0.56%) and 12 (0.45%) invalid test results, respectively. Thereafter, over 19,600 samples (minipools and run controls) were analyzed during the first 11 months of routine screening. Invalid test results for HIV-1 RNA and HCV RNA were found in 1.1 and 1.07 percent of the samples tested, respectively. HIV-1 RNA minipool testing resulted in 27 (0.16%) initial false-positive results and 3 (0.02%) confirmed positive results. HCV RNA minipool testing resulted in four (0.02%) initial false-positive results and five (0.02%) confirmed positive results. CONCLUSION: Routine HIV and HCV NAT minipool screening using the NucliSens Extractor, AmpliScreen HIV-1 version 1.5, and AmpliScreen HCV version 2.0 meets the sensitivity criteria set by the regulatory bodies and provides sufficient specificity and robustness for timely release of blood donations.

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.

Mathematic modeling of the risk of HBV, HCV, and HIV transmission by window-phase donations not detected by NAT.

BACKGROUND: Blood transfusion centers around the world have introduced minipool NAT to reduce the risk of HBV, HCV, and HIV transmission by blood donations drawn in the infectious window phase. What would be the reduction in the residual risk when minipool NAT would be replaced by single-donation NAT? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A mathematic model was developed to estimate the probability of virus transmission by blood transfusion when NAT screening methods are used for virologic safety testing. The major assumptions used are threefold: 1) The viral nucleic acid concentrations in the early window phase of infection double in 2.8 (HBV), 0.74 (HCV), and 0.90 (HIV) days. 2) The detectability of low copy numbers of viral DNA or RNA by the screening assay can be described with a probit model. 3) The probability of infection depends linearly on the logarithm of the administered dose, with 50-percent infectivity rates at 10 (HBV and HCV) or 1000 (HIV) viral nucleic acid copies per transfusion unit (estimates based on NAT studies with samples of known infectivity in chimpanzees). RESULTS: A reasonably simple equation was obtained that allows studying the effect of the sensitivity of the NAT assay and of the pool size used for screening on the residual risk of transfusion-transmitted infection. The computations are illustrated by using observed sensitivity estimates of various NAT methods. By using epidemiologic data among European donors over 1997 as baseline, the calculations predict that the incidence of virus transmission per 10-million RBC transfusions reduces with the following numbers when lowering the test pool size from 96 to 1 (single-donation testing): HBV from 11 to 13 to 3.3 to 5.1, HCV from 1.7 to 2.0 to 0.5 to 0.8, and HIV from 0.47 to 0.62 to 0.010 to 0.045 (ranges for the different NAT screening methods). CONCLUSION: A proper mathematic model for the calculation of residual infection risk by blood transfusion helps understand the impact of introducing new NAT methods for blood safety testing.