Infectivity of hepatitis B virus (HBV) surface antigen (HBsAg) positive plasma with undetectable HBV-DNA: Can HBsAg screening be discontinued in Egyptian blood donors?

HBV infectivity data were reviewed and the 50% infectious dose (ID50 ) was reassessed in different HBsAg positive infection stages enabling modelling of transfusion-transmitted (TT)-HBV infection risk if HBsAg donor screening was replaced by individual donation nucleic acid amplification technology (ID-NAT). Quantitative HBsAg and HBV-DNA assays were performed against international standards to compare the ratio between potential infectious HBV virions and subviral HBsAg particles in Egyptian HBsAg positive blood donors as well as in Japanese chimpanzee samples of known infectivity. HBV-DNA load below the quantification limit of detection was estimated against a reference standard by replicate NAT testing (n = 25). Infectivity of chimpanzee samples collected during ramp-up and declining viremic phase were tested in a human liver chimeric mice (HLCM) model and compared with published infectivity data from different HBsAg positive infection stages. Lowest estimates of ID50 in HBsAg positive plasma were 3-6 HBV virions in chimpanzee studies. Infectivity decreased approximately 10-100-fold in the declining viremic phase using HLCM. In acute-phase samples, HBV to HBsAg particle ratios varied between 1:102 -104 but in HBsAg positive blood donors this particle ratio reached 1:106 -1012 when viral load was below 100 HBV-DNA copies/ml. Modelled TT-HBV risk of an HBsAg positive/ID-NAT nonreactive blood transfusion was estimated at 9%-46% for components containing 20-200 ml of plasma assuming an ID50 of 316 (point estimate between 100 and 1000) virions. In the Egyptian setting, discontinuation of HBsAg donor screening and reliance on ID-NAT alone seems to be unsafe.

Accuracy of quantitative HIV-1 RNA test methods at 1000 copies/mL and the potential impact of differences in assay calibration on therapy monitoring of patients.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the clinical use of a human immunodeficiency virus 1 (HIV-1) viral load (VL) threshold level of 1000 copies (cp)/mL in patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART) to distinguish between viral control (VL < 1000 cp/mL) and viral failure or poor adherence (VL > 1000 cp/mL). The accuracy of five quantitative HIV-1 RNA assays at this level was compared by replicate testing (n = 24) of 1000 cp/mL samples prepared from the Viral Quality Control (VQC) HIV-1 subtype B standard, which is in use for validation of nucleic acid testing methods since 1995. Until 2004 the VL assays reported geometric mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) values ranging between 449 (188-1067) and 3162 (3057-2367) cp/mL when using the Siemens bDNA 3.0 assay as reference method for an assigned value of 1000 (962-1038) cp/mL. In 2018, the following values (95% CI) were found by 24 replicate tests in each of the VL assays on the 1000 cp/mL samples: Abbott RealTime 1084 (784-1572), BioMerieux EasyQ 1110 (533-2230), Roche CAP/CTM 1277 (892-1828), Hologic Aptima 1616 (1324-1973), and Cepheid GeneXpert 2502 (1713-3655) cp/mL. Calibration studies involving three consecutive WHO replacement standards showed a significant drift in the amount of RNA copies per International Unit overtime. Heat inactivation of HIV-1 standards was found to cause a destandardizing effect. Our study underlines the limitations in HIV-1 RNA assay calibration based on frequently replaced WHO international standards. It is therefore proposed that clinicians interpret the recommended 1000 cp/mL alert level in therapy monitoring with an inaccuracy range of 500 to 2000 cp/mL.

Comparison of two nucleic acid amplification technology systems for detection of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, and hepatitis C virus.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) are endemic in South Africa while hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is rare. Two nucleic acid amplification technology platforms, the Procleix Ultrio Elite assay on the Panther instrument (Elite) and the cobas MPX assay on the cobas 6800 or 8800 system (MPX), are used worldwide. In 2015 these were evaluated in South African context. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The sensitivity of HIV, HBV, and HCV was evaluated using reference panels and 2-fold dilutions of 51 positive plasma samples tested in 12 to 24 replicates. The 95% and 50% lower limits of detection (LOD) were estimated by probit analysis and window period (WP) risk days by the Weusten model. Specificity was established by testing 3646 blood donations individually and instrument performance by evaluating all runs. RESULTS: Specificity was 99.94% for MPX and 99.97% for Elite. The following 95% LODs (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were estimated for MPX and Elite, respectively: HBV, 17.8 (10.9-33.9) and 47.9 (29.1-92.4) cp/mL; HCV, 21.9 (15.3-34.6) and 13.8 (8.9-24.0) cp/mL; and HIV, 8.3 (5.5-14.7) and 10.4 (6.9-18.2) cp/mL. On SA HBV and HIV dilution panels, relative sensitivity (range) of MPX was 3.20 (1.26-6.50) and 1.42 (0.26-2.72) fold higher than Elite. Downtime on cobas 6800 was 26 hours vs 6.6 hours on Panther (P < .001). We estimated infectious WPs for HBV, HCV, and HIV-1 at 13.8, 1.8, and 2.6 days for Elite and 10.3, 2.1, and 2.4 days for MPX. CONCLUSION: Although MPX was significantly more sensitive for HBV, Elite was implemented due to instrument reliability during evaluation.

Direct comparison of three residual risk models for hepatitis B virus window period infections using updated input parameters.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Comparison of two models for estimating residual transfusion transmission risk by NAT screened window period (WP) donations in South African repeat donors gave identical results for HIV but not for HBV. In order to understand discrepant HBV modelling outcomes, the values of input parameters in three HBV WP risk models were reviewed and subsequently applied to the same South African screening data generated by HBsAg PRISM and two NAT assays (Ultrio and Ultrio Plus). Two of the models were also compared using individual donation (ID)-NAT screening data from different geographical regions. METHODS: Values of input parameters were derived from two published data sources and used in three risk models [(1) the incidence rate-WP risk day equivalent model, (2) the NAT yield WP ratio model and (3) the anti-HBc-negative HBsAg yield period ratio model] and subsequently applied to the same ID-NAT screening data. RESULTS: The HBV WP transmission risk in South African repeat donations during a one-year Ultrio Plus NAT screening period was estimated as 22, 43 and 17 per million, respectively, for the three models, as compared to 56, 117 and 48 per million for HBsAg PRISM screening. The approximate two-fold higher estimate calculated with the NAT yield WP ratio model was corroborated in repeat donations from three of four regions in a multi-regional study. When another set of model input values (with shorter viraemia periods and a higher proportion of acute occult infections) was applied to the South African screening data, the relative difference in risk estimates between the three models became smaller. CONCLUSIONS: Window period risk modelling for HBV is more complex than for HIV. Multiple factors affect the modelling outcomes. These include the values used for the length of transient HBsAg and HBV-DNA-positive phases, the proportion of acute occult and vaccine breakthrough infections and the assumption of random appearance of donors throughout the entire acute resolving infection phase. A substantial proportion of HBV WP NAT yields have very low viral load and lack donor follow-up data calling into question their definitive classification into the early acute (infectious) replication stage. Since these possible WP NAT yields most highly impact the NAT yield WP ratio model, we recommend relying on the more conservative estimates of the incidence rate-WP risk day equivalent model.

Reassessment of hepatitis B virus window periods for two transcription-mediated amplification assays using screening data of South African blood donors.

BACKGROUND: Transcription-mediated amplification assays for HBV DNA detection have transitioned from the Ultrio to the Ultrio Plus assay, which features increased analytic sensitivity due to inclusion of a target enhancer reagent. The impact on HBV detection for different categories of HBV infection has not been fully evaluated. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA and hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) detection rates as well as viral load (VL) distributions in HBV nucleic acid test (NAT)-yield samples were compared during 1 year of screening of South African blood donors with the Ultrio assay and the subsequent year by the Ultrio Plus version. HBV-DNA concentration at the HBsAg seroconversion point was established by regression analysis using a set of antibody to hepatitis B core antigen-negative acute viremic samples. RESULTS: Ultrio Plus detected twofold more window-period (WP) NAT yield donations and 1.7-fold more occult HBV infections than Ultrio. The VL distribution data indicated that Ultrio not only missed samples of less than 100 copies/mL, but also a substantial number higher than this level. The VL at the HBsAg seroconversion point was estimated at 916 copies/mL, whereas the VL at the NAT-conversion points was calculated at 63 and 4.1 copies/mL for Ultrio and Ultrio Plus. This reduced the infectious WP (compared to HBsAg testing) by 10.3 and 20.4 days, respectively. CONCLUSION: The higher-than-expected increase in HBV-NAT yields after introduction of the Ultrio Plus assay is likely attributable to variable sensitivity of the former Ultrio assay for different HBV samples. Therefore, previously published HBV WP reduction and residual risk estimates based on analytical sensitivity of the Ultrio assay need to be revised.

A mathematical model for estimating residual transmission risk of occult hepatitis B virus infection with different blood safety scenarios.

BACKGROUND: If anti-hepatitis B core antibody testing is not mandated blood donors with occult hepatitis B infection (OBI) may transmit hepatitis B virus (HBV) to a recipient in spite of the use of nucleic acid amplification technology (NAT) or pathogen inactivation (PI). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We developed a model to estimate OBI transmission risk based on three components: the probability distribution of the viral load (VL) in a randomly selected OBI donor, the probability that a given VL remains undetected, and the probability that this VL causes infection in the recipient. A subset of 217 South African OBI samples identified by individual donation (ID)-NAT screening were quantified by replicate testing using an ID-NAT assay (Ultrio Plus) against HBV DNA standard dilution series. The observed log VLs could be described by a Gumbel distribution. A correction was included to compensate for OBI samples missed by initial ID-NAT screening. RESULTS: The model estimates that 3.3% of all OBI donations are undetected by ID-NAT (Ultrio Plus) and cause infection by a blood component containing 20 mL plasma, going up to 8.7% when using minipools of 6 (MP6)-NAT. For 200-mL plasma transfusion these risks were estimated at 14 and 28%, respectively, while PI with modest (2 log) reduction capacity would reach 4.8% without NAT and 1.3 or 0.4% when combined with MP6- or ID-NAT. CONCLUSION: The model can be used to compare different screening and/or PI strategies in reducing viral transmission risk and could serve as a tool in evaluating efficacy of alternative blood safety scenarios.

Viremia levels in hepatitis C infection among Egyptian blood donors and implications for transmission risk with different screening scenarios.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about the viral load (VL) distributions in different stages of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is essential to compare the efficacy of serologic screening and nucleic acid testing (NAT) in preventing transfusion transmission risk. We studied HCV-RNA levels in Egyptian blood donors in the preseroconversion window period (WP) and in later anti-HCV-positive stages of infection. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Subsets of individual-donation (ID)-NAT and anti-HCV-yield samples from a screening study among 119,756 donors were tested for VL by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Low viremia levels below the quantification limit of qPCR were determined by probit analysis using the proportion of reactive results on replicate NATs. Poisson distribution statistics were used to estimate transmission risk in different stages of HCV infection based on 50% minimum infectious doses (MID50 ) of 3.2 (1-10) and 316 (100-1000) virions in the absence and presence of anti-HCV, respectively. RESULTS: Rates of total HCV infections and WP-NAT-yield donations in two Egyptian blood centers varied between 2.6% to 4.5% and 1:3100 to 1:9500, respectively. VLs ranged from 82 to 3 × 10(7) copies/mL in WP and from fewer than 1600 to 1.6 × 10(6) copies/mL in anti-HCV-positive carrier donations. Only two (1.1%) of 175 donors with probable resolved infection had detectable RNA on replicate testing (estimated VLs of 0.5 and 1.8 copies/mL). This translates to an estimated transmission risk of 0.028% if ID-NAT-nonreactive, anti-HCV-positive donations would be used for RBC transfusions. CONCLUSION: Almost 99% of anti-HCV-reactive donations without detectable HCV-RNA on initial ID-NAT screening had eradicated the virus from the circulation, while 1% had extremely low VLs and are likely not infectious. The incremental safety offered by serologic testing of ID-NAT-screened blood seems minimal.

Inclusion of human immunodeficiency virus Type 2 (HIV-2) in a multiplex transcription-mediated amplification assay does not affect detection of HIV-1 and hepatitis B and C virus genotypes: a multicenter performance evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: The Ultrio Elite assay (Hologic/Grifols) runs on the Panther blood screening system and is comparable to the Ultrio Plus assay apart from the addition of oligonucleotides for human immunodeficiency virus Type 2 (HIV-2) detection. In this multicenter evaluation study the analytical sensitivity and genotype detection efficiency of the two assay versions were compared. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The analytical sensitivity and genotype detection efficiency were analyzed by replicate (18-303) testing of 27 hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), HIV-1, and HIV-2 standard dilution panels calibrated in international units (IUs) and copies/mL. A wider range of subgenotypes was tested at 25 copies/mL. Specificity was evaluated in 30,756 donor samples. RESULTS: The 95% lower limits of detection (LODs) in Ultrio Elite assay on WHO standards were 4.6, 7.3, 23.5, and 23.3 IU/mL for HBV, HCV, HIV-1, and HIV-2, respectively, and ranged from 13 to 44, 7 to 23, 6 to 15, and 9 copies/mL on genotype panels of the respective viruses. Comparable LODs had been previously found on the same panels with the Ultrio Plus assay. The specificity was 99.95% on initial test and 100% in the repeat test algorithm. CONCLUSION: The change in the oligonucleotide design of the Ultrio Elite assay to enable HIV-2 detection has not affected the analytical sensitivity for the other viruses regardless of the genotype. Genotype reference panels are instrumental to compare the sensitivity of nucleic acid test assay versions and could serve as an alternative to seroconversion panels.

Sensitivity of hepatitis C virus core antigen and antibody combination assays in a global panel of window period samples.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) antigen and antibody combination assays have been launched as a cost-effective alternative to nucleic acid testing (NAT) for reducing the antibody-negative window period (WP). Later, a HCV antigen chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) became available. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A panel composed of 337 HCV NAT-yield samples that were characterized for viral load (VL) and genotype was used to compare the sensitivity of two combination enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (Monolisa, Bio-Rad; and Murex, formerly Abbott) and a HCV antigen CLIA (Abbott). Analytic sensitivity was compared with HCV RNA detection using Ultrio (Grifols) by testing serial dilutions of 10 genotype (gt)1 to gt4 samples. RESULTS: HCV antigen CLIA detected 92.4% of samples, whereas Monolisa and Murex detected 38.3 and 47.5%, respectively. In the HCV RNA VL range of 10(5) to 10(7) IU/mL, Monolisa and Murex detected 38% to 56% of gt1, 85% to 78% of gt2, and 21% to 37% of gt3. The overall geometric mean 50% limit of detection (range) of Ultrio on gt1 to gt4 dilution series was 3.5 (1.2-7.7) copies/mL, compared to 3.3 × 10(6) (4.4 × 10(5) -2.7 × 10(7) ), 3.4 × 10(6) (2.2 × 10(5) -4.2 × 10(7) ), and 2728 (415-7243) copies/mL for Monolisa, Murex, and HCV antigen CLIA, respectively. CONCLUSION: Analytical sensitivity of NAT was on average 1 million- and 780-fold higher than combination assays and HCV antigen CLIA, respectively. Relative sensitivities of combination assays differed for genotypes with Murex being more sensitive for gt1 and gt3 and Monolisa more sensitive for gt2. Although being less sensitive than NAT, combination assays could be considered in resource-limited settings since they detect 38% to 47% of seronegative WP donations.

A mathematical approach to estimate the efficacy of individual-donation and minipool nucleic acid amplification test options in preventing transmission risk by window period and occult hepatitis B virus infections.

BACKGROUND: Sensitivity data from a head-to-head comparison study in South Africa were used to compare the efficacy of the Ultrio Plus assay in individual-donation (ID) and minipool (MP)4 and MP8 formats with that of TaqScreen MP6 in preventing hepatitis B virus (HBV) transmission risk. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The replicate nucleic acid test (NAT) results on 106 HBV NAT (Ultrio)-yield samples and 29 HBV DNA (Ultrio)-negative, hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive samples were used to determine the viral load in copies/mL against the Eurohep HBV standard by probit analysis. Random viral load distributions were established in 32 pre-HBsAg window period (WP), 15 post-HBsAg WP, and 56 occult HBV infection (OBI) donations. Regression analysis of log viral load and Poisson distribution statistics of infectious HBV particles in blood components was used to predict infectivity and efficacy of NAT options in removing HBV transmission risk. RESULTS: For red blood cell transfusions (20 mL of plasma), the modeling predicted an Ultrio Plus ID-NAT efficacy of 68 and 83% in removing WP and (antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen-negative) OBI transmission risk, respectively, compared to 52 and 49% by TaqScreen MP6. For 200 mL of fresh-frozen plasma the estimated efficacy levels by these ID- and MP6-NAT options reduced to 57 and 44% for WP and to 67 and 34% for OBI donations, respectively. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of the currently available commercial NAT systems in reducing HBV transmission risk is mainly driven by the pool size and the transfusion plasma volume. The modeled OBI transmission risk and NAT efficacy levels were in line with those recently reported in three lookback studies and give more insight in the incremental safety provided by HBsAg and antibody to hepatitis B core antigen testing of ID-NAT screened blood.

Sensitivity of individual-donation and minipool nucleic acid amplification test options in detecting window period and occult hepatitis B virus infections.

BACKGROUND: Several comparison studies showed that the Ultrio assay (Novartis Diagnostics) used in individual-donation nucleic acid amplification testing (ID-NAT) format was as sensitive as the TaqScreen assay (Roche) on minipools of six donations (MP6), but the sensitivity of HBV DNA detection has been improved in the new Ultrio Plus version of the assay. A head-to-head comparison study was designed to compare the clinical sensitivity of the Ultrio and Ultrio Plus assay in ID, MP4, and MP8 formats using TaqScreen MP6 as a reference assay. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Plasma samples of 107 hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-negative, HBV ID-NAT (Ultrio) positive-yield samples and 29 HBV DNA-negative, HBsAg-positive samples were used for comparison of NAT options in replicate testing of dilutions. Viral loads and relative sensitivities were determined by probit analysis against the Eurohep standard. RESULTS: Ultrio Plus detected a significantly (p < 0.00001) higher proportion of replicate assays on HBV NAT yields (77%) than Ultrio ID (62%) and TaqScreen MP6 (47%), whereas Ultrio Plus MP4 and MP8 detected 53 and 41%, respectively. On HBsAg-yield samples missed by Ultrio screening, the reactivity rate increased significantly (p < 0.0001) from 23% in Ultrio to 65% in Ultrio Plus and further to 72% (p = 0.10) in the TaqScreen assay. The overall improvement factor of the analytical sensitivity offered by the target enhancer reagent in the Ultrio Plus assay was 2.5 (2.0-3.1)-fold on the Ultrio yield samples, but 43 (11-350)-fold on the HBsAg yields. In ID-NAT format the analytical sensitivity of TaqScreen relative to Ultrio Plus was 2.0 (1.0-4.2), 0.9 (0.7-1.3), and 1.6 (0.9-3.0) on the Eurohep standard, HBV NAT-, and HBsAg-yield samples respectively. CONCLUSION: The clinical sensitivity of the currently available commercial NAT methods is mainly driven by the pool size.

Comparison of human immunodeficiency virus assays in window phase and elite controller samples: viral load distribution and implications for transmission risk.

BACKGROUND: After 3 years of individual-donation nucleic acid test (ID-NAT) screening by the South African National Blood Service (SANBS), a repository of 73 human immunodeficiency virus antibody (anti-HIV)-negative window period (WP)-yield samples and 28 anti-HIV-positive, HIV-RNA-negative elite controllers (ECs) became available for comparison of a p24 antigen (p24 Ag) assay (Innogenetics), two viral load assays (Siemens branch DNA [bDNA] 3.0 and Abbott real-time polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR]), and three triplex NAT assays (Novartis Diagnostics Ultrio and Ultrio-Plus and Roche TaqScreen) by replicate testing of dilutions. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Viral loads were assessed by bDNA and RT-PCR assays and if below 100 copies (cps)/mL, by Ultrio limiting dilution probit analysis. The probability of virus transmission by WP and EC donations was estimated for different levels of the 50% minimum infectious dose (ID50 ) using Poisson distribution statistics. RESULTS: The equal distribution of WP donations plotted by log HIV-RNA levels indicated a random appearance of donors in the ramp-up phase. The HIV p24 Ag assay detected 45% of WP samples and the cutoff crossing point was estimated at 8140 (bDNA)/22,710 (RT-PCR) cps/mL. On replicate retesting of 40 HIV p24 Ag-negative ID-NAT WP-yield samples Ultrio minipool (MP)8, Ultrio-Plus MP8, and TaqScreen MP6 detected 79, 81, and 78%, respectively. Modeling with an estimated ID50 of 31.6 virions/RBC indicated that 15% of p24 Ag-negative ID-NAT WP-yield donations would have transmitted HIV if MP6-8 NAT had been used. Only 2% of RBC transfusions from ECs are estimated to be infectious with a worst-case ID50 estimate of 316 virions. CONCLUSION: Our analysis of viremia and infectivity of WP and EC donations enables comparison of the efficacy of NAT options in preventing HIV transmission risk.

Head-to-head comparison of two transcription-mediated amplification assay versions for detection of hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and human immunodeficiency virus Type 1 in blood donors.

BACKGROUND: The second triplex transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) assay version (Ultrio Plus, Novartis Diagnostics) uses an additional reagent enhancing the disruption of hepatitis B virus (HBV) particles and release of DNA for the target capture probe. This study compares the performance of this new assay version with the previous one (Ultrio). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: For analytical sensitivity assessment the World Health Organization HBV, hepatitis C virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) international standards and various genotype dilution panels were used. Individual donations (IDs) from 9980 first-time donors were screened simultaneously by serology and both TMA assay versions. RESULTS: The 50 and 95% limits of detection (LODs) for HBV using Ultrio Plus were 0.8 (0.6-1.0) and 4.6 (3.2-7.2) IU/mL, respectively, 2.4 (1.4-4.8)-fold more sensitive than Ultrio. The TMA assay versions had comparable LODs for HIV-1 and HCV. The improvement factors on analytical sensitivity panels of HBV Genotypes A to G ranged from 1.3 to 7.3 and 50% LODs (95% confidence interval) reduced from 12.5 (10-15) to 3.8 (3.2-4.4) copies/mL. One Ultrio Plus HBV Genotype D yield sample missed by the Ultrio assay in the donor screening study was detected with ninefold higher sensitivity. The specificities of ID nucleic acid test (ID-NAT) and serologic testing in a similar repeat test algorithm were 100 and 99.41%, respectively. CONCLUSION: More efficient target capture chemistry in the new TMA assay version significantly improved sensitivity and diminished variability in detecting HBV strains of various genotypes. We recommend a triplicate ID-NAT repeat test strategy to eliminate discriminatory tests on false-non-repeat-reactive (anti-HBc-nonreactive) donations.

Early Dynamics of Hepatitis B Virus (HBV)-DNA and Surface Antigen (HBsAg) in Ramp-Up Phase of Viremia: Implications for Performance Evaluation of Blood Screening Assays.

The Common Specifications/EU 2017/746 regulation for market approval of class D in vitro diagnostic devices (IVDs) intended for detection of blood borne viruses requires testing of the International Standard and 10-30 seroconversion panels to demonstrate 'state of the art' assay performance. We examined whether these requirements for performance evaluation are reasonable for HBV-DNA and HBsAg assays. For this purpose, we quantified HBsAg and HBV-DNA (genotype A) in the ramp-up phase of five seroconversion panels and demonstrated a remarkably parallel increase in the Log concentration of both analytes over time. Testing of seroconversion panels by three nucleic acid amplification technology (NAT) methods in multiple replicates and probit analysis with sufficient critical samples from all five panels taken together showed detection limits in copies/mL that were comparable to those on a HBV-DNA genotype A standard dilution panel. This indicates that the viral doubling time in the ramp-up phase is equal above and below the quantification limit of the viral load assay. The geometric mean HBsAg (PRISM) cutoff crossing point was 20 days later than the 50% NAT (Ultrio Plus) conversion point equivalent to 1500 (range: 1100-2200) and 4.8 (CI: 3.7-6.4) HBV-DNA copies/mL, respectively. Analytical sensitivity data of different NAT assay versions obtained over a decade demonstrated that the detection limit on the International Standard is not representative of all genotyped reference samples. From our detailed mathematical analysis, we conclude that HBV-DNA and HBsAg standard dilution series are functionally equivalent to seroconversion panels. A general requirement of a 95% detection limit ≤100 HBV-DNA copies/mL for different viral genotypes would be a better-defined regulation for EU market approval of NAT blood screening assays than the testing of multiple seroconversion panels to claim 'state of the art' performance.

Refinement of a viral transmission risk model for blood donations in seroconversion window phase screened by nucleic acid testing in different pool sizes and repeat test algorithms.

BACKGROUND: In minipool nucleic acid test (MP-NAT) screening protocols, the donations implicated in reactive test pools are released for transfusion when they are nonreactive in a repeat test on the individual samples, but in individual-donation (ID)-NAT screening algorithms the release of nonrepeatable reactive (NRR) donations is under discussion. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A previously developed window phase (WP) transmission risk model for NAT-screened blood transfusions has been refined to take the effect of repeat tests of initially reactive (IR) MP- or ID-NAT results into account. The model has then been applied to simulate the effect of different screening algorithms with ULTRIO and the new-generation ULTRIO Plus assay (Novartis Diagnostics) on transmission risk for hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). RESULTS: We calculated WP risk-day equivalents for MP16-, MP8-, and ID-NAT with and without duplicate retesting of IR results of 3.1, 2.7, 1.5, and 1.3 days for HCV; 6.3, 5.5, 3.3, and 2.9 days for HIV; and 24.4, 22.2, 15.6, and 14.1 days for HBV, respectively. These latter infectious HBV WPs reduced to 20.4, 18.2, 11.6, and 10.3 days, respectively, with the more sensitive ULTRIO Plus assay. CONCLUSION: ULTRIO Plus ID-NAT screening reduces the virus transmission risk in the WP by 54% to 58% compared to ULTRIO MP16-NAT, while the incremental risk caused by releasing donations with duplicate ID-NAT NRR results is 5% to 6%. To achieve maximum safety and specificity a similar repeat test algorithm can be applied to ID-NAT as used for serologic assays.

Sensitivity of two hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) nucleic acid test systems relative to hepatitis B surface antigen, anti-HCV, anti-HIV, and p24/anti-HIV combination assays in seroconversion panels.

BACKGROUND: Accurate determination of the infectious window period (IWP) that remains with individual-donation (ID) or minipool (MP) NAT compared to those with serology assays is essential for residual risk estimations. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The relative sensitivity of the Procleix Tigris system (Gen-Probe/Chiron) used in ID-NAT format and cobas s 201 (Roche Molecular Systems) applied in 1:6 diluted samples to mimic six-minipool (MP6) nucleic acid test (NAT) was assessed by quadruplicate testing of five seroconversion panels per marker. A mathematical analysis based on the log-linear increase of viremia in the ramp-up phase, as established with bDNA 3.0 assays enabled estimation of the IWP for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) assays. RESULTS: The mean IWPs were Tigris HIV RNA 5.5 days, s 201 (1:6) HIV RNA 7.4 days, GenScreen Plus p24/anti-HIV 17.8 days, PRISM anti-HIV 19.0 days, Tigris HBV DNA 20.6 days, s 201 (1:6) HBV DNA 22.6 days, Bio-Rad hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) 37.8 days, and PRISM HBsAg 35.5 days. At estimated 50 percent NAT seroconversion rates, s 201 (1:6) and Tigris showed mean window-period reduction times (WPRTs) of 30.5 to 35.5 days to hepatitis C virus antibody (anti-HCV) assays, 10.4 to 13.5 days to anti-HIV, or combination p24/anti-HIV assays and 12.8 to 17.2 days to HBsAg assays. CONCLUSIONS: Tigris ID-NAT detected HIV RNA 2 days earlier than s 201 MP6-NAT, but the difference in sensitivity between the two NAT systems was not significant in HBV seroconversion panels. Insufficient seroconversion samples were available for reliable modeling of WPRT in early HCV infection, but 1.4 to 2.0 days could be predicted by translating analytical sensitivity data. Both multiplex NAT systems demonstrate significant WPRTs compared to (combined) antigen and antibody assays.

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.

Inter-laboratory comparison of HCV-RNA assay results: implications for multi-centre research.

To investigate whether it is appropriate to assume comparability of hepatitis virus C (HCV)-RNA results across laboratories in multi-centre studies, nine laboratories of the European Paediatric HCV Network participated in an international proficiency study of HCV-RNA assays. A panel of 12 samples of different dilutions and genotypes was sent to each laboratory and tested with qualitative and/or quantitative HCV-RNA assays according to local procedures. Commercial assays were used in seven laboratories and in-house assays in two. All six laboratories in which a commercial qualitative assay was used were proficient, as were four of six runs (in five laboratories) in which a commercial quantitative assay was used. The proficiency of the laboratories where in-house assays were used could not be assessed according to the VQC definition because of differences in the methods used. Overall, there were several false-negative results, but only one false-positive result with a quantitative assay and none with a qualitative assay. The false-negative results may have implications for the diagnosis of infection, and highlight the need for an antibody test to be performed at 18 months to confirm the absence of infection. The results of qualitative assays were generally consistent across laboratories but it was difficult to evaluate and compare the results of quantitative assays. Multivariate analysis of data collected in multi-centre studies should therefore allow for centre and/or assay used.

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.

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.